Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Volunteer Police (Dependants' Allowance)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is his intention to bring practice in the Colonial Empire into line with the United Kingdom for the payment of dependants' allowances to special volunteer police who are killed when performing services to the community consistent with their accepted responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): The matter is one for individual colonial Governments, which must be left to decide which provision they will make in this respect, but I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department about United Kingdom practice and will bring it to the notice of all colonial Governments which may be concerned.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at the moment such voluntary police are covered here whereas where the danger is greatest they lack coverage? Will he kindly expedite these conversations in view of what is going on in Malaya?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, I propose to consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to bring to the notice of all the colonial Governments the practice which we adopt.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Quite apart from any consultations, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that a special constable in the United Kingdom is always on duty whereas in

Malaya in certain circumstances he might be considered to be not on duty?

Mr. Griffiths: I am consulting with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary so that the practice here can be conveyed to them in exact terms. I should not like to answer that on the spot.

Annual Reports

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps can be taken to expedite the publication of colonial annual reports, many of which are nearly two years in arrear.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Efforts are being made to reduce the time taken in all stages of preparation and publication of the reports and it is hoped to institute new printing arrangements next year.

Anti-Malaria Campaigns

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what Colonies campaigns are being conducted with a view to the complete eradication of malaria.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Campaigns are in progress in Mauritius, the coastal belt of British Guiana, Tobago and a number of experimental areas in East and West Africa. In Cyprus steps are being taken to prevent re-importation of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, of which the island was declared free at the beginning of this year. The question of total eradication in hyper-endemic areas in Africa, with all its implications, was examined at the Malaria Conference held at Kampala from 27th November to 9th December under the joint auspices of the World Health Organisation and the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa south of the Sahara. This conference was attended by about 40 experts of international repute and the conclusions reached will be studied with great interest by colonial territories.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Have they considered concentrating on certain island areas which, apparently, could more easily be made proof against malaria?

Mr. Griffiths: I am awaiting the full report and when I have it I will be glad to have a word with the hon. Member about it.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the small fish


which eats the larvæ of the fly that spreads malaria has been introduced into any of these Colonies?

Mr. Griffiths: I should want notice of that, but we have had the assistance of the greatest experts in the world in dealing with the matter and I am sure that no possible way of combating malaria will have escaped their attention.

Mr. G. Beresford Craddock: Will the report of this conference be available to the House in due course?

Mr. Griffiths: I would like notice of that. I am not quite sure, because it was a committee of experts.

Newsprint Production

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the production of newsprint in the Gold Coast and in other colonial territories.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The use of possible substitutes for wood pulp has been and is being investigated, but so far none has been found which appears to offer a reasonably economic proposition for the production of newsprint. The main obstacle is the lack of soft woods in the colonial territories.

Commander Noble: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a recent French discovery whereby, by mixing hard and soft local woods, a suitable pulp is obtained? Has he given any consideration to developing that idea?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, I have heard of that and I think it is being investigated, but with what results I do not know.

Labour Advisory Committee

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which members of the Colonial Labour Advisory Committee have had administrative experience of the problems of trade unionism in colonial territories.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The unofficial members of my Colonial Labour Advisory Committee have been appointed in a personal capacity to advise me in the light of their varied experience of labour problems. All except two of them have firsthand knowledge of colonial Labour con-

ditions. When administrative or other special experience of any subject is needed the Committee has power to co-opt or consult persons who can contribute it. Quite recently the Committee were able to confer with five colonial Labour Commissioners.

Mr. Alport: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that one or more members of this Committee have actually served in the Labour Department of any Colonial Government or have acted as trade union advisers to any Colonial Government?

Mr. Griffiths: No. What I said was that they were persons who had first-hand knowledge of colonial labour conditions.

Trade Unionism

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the recent pronouncements made by the Labour Commissioners of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, the Government is prepared to re-examine its policy with regard to the extension of colonial trade unionism.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No, Sir. There is no question of any modification of the policy of encouraging the development of colonial trade unions. The point is that in East Africa the organisation of workers and employers has not yet reached a sufficiently advanced stage to make collective bargaining fully effective and the development of trade unionism, therefore, needs to be supplemented by the establishment of wages councils and joint consultative machinery.

Mr. Alport: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the previous Question indicate that there is an urgent need for the Government to reconsider their policy, not only in the interest of the development of industrial relations in the Colonies but in the interests of bona fide trade unionism as well?

Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I will not reconsider the policy. It is unfair and highly dangerous to leave a growing body of wage earners in these colonial territories without an effective trade union to protect them. It is my desire and intention to do everything possible to foster the development of industrial relations.

Festival of Britain (Visits)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recommendations have been made to colonial Governments in respect of facilities and arrangements for official and non-official representatives from the colonial territories visiting this country during the Festival of Britain.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I certainly hope that there will be many visitors from the colonial territories next year. I have not made any recommendations to colonial Governments, but I am considering whether special arrangements to invite colonial representatives can be made. I cannot say more at present.

Mr. Sorensen: While a portion of that answer gives great satisfaction, would not my right hon. Friend agree that everything should be done to encourage colonials to come to this country? Further, can he say whether any part of the Festival will be devoted to colonial exhibits?

Mr. Griffiths: As I have said, I am giving attention to this problem. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have a word with me about it later.

Nurses (Training)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many girls or women from the Colonies since the end of the war have completed their training as nurses and have returned to their homeland; how many of these have been appointed as sisters or other senior posts particularly in West Africa; how many are still in training in this country; and in what Colonies nurses are required to relinquish their posts on marriage.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Eighty-four, including 26 scholarship holders, have completed courses of training since the end of the war. I understand that the majority have returned or will shortly return to their own countries, but my information in regard to the private students is incomplete. I know of 14 cases in which offers of appointment as sisters or in comparable posts have been made or are about to be made. Three of these are in West Africa. But there have been, in addition, a large number of local appointments which would not come officially to my notice.
Seven hundred and ninety women are in training in the United Kingdom as nurses at present, including 125 scholarship holders. In most Colonies nurses may be required to resign on marriage, but cases are usually considered on their merits.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that nurses from colonial areas who have trained in this country have given very great and valuable service to our hospitals, and that some of them find it difficult to get senior posts when they return home? In view of that, would he not consider finding some means of encouraging the appointment of African and other colonial nurses to senior posts?

Mr. Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that while training here these nurses render valuable service. I am most anxious that when they go back home, having been trained here, they shall be given posts which are appropriate in view of the training which they have received. I will certainly do anything I can to help.

Dr. Barnett Stross: With reference to the last sentence in the original Question, would my right hon. Friend use all his influence to point out that it is most wasteful if nurses of any kind, from any part of the Dominions or the Colonial Empire, are asked to relinquish their posts on marriage?

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA

Trade Unions

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet considered the report of the committee appointed to investigate the problem of trade unions in West Africa; and when he will make it available to the House.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The primary function of the group which visited Nigeria was to assist by their experience and advice in the improvement of industrial relations. They have made no formal report, but have had full discussions with me and the Governor, and two of them have returned to Nigeria to continue their work. I hope to give the House further information when various consultations now in progress are more advanced.

Miss Ward: Does not the right hon. Gentleman intend to ask for a report?

Mr. Griffiths: No. When I announced the appointment of these four people to go to Nigeria I indicated that I thought they would serve a more useful purpose by not making a formal report but by having discussions with everybody concerned.

Palm Oil Mills

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make a statement about the recent women's riot in Eastern Nigeria caused by the proposal to erect a pioneer palm-oil mill to replace or supplement hand-pressing.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the reply is rather long I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir Richard Acland: While recognising that the Secretary of State has no direct power over the Nigerian Development Board, may I ask him whether he would make representations to that Board to make sure that they are employing a sufficient number of people to explain the need of the pioneer mills in villages which are likely to be affected?

Mr. Griffiths: The question of explaining this matter to the people is of great importance. Unless there is a full explanation we cannot possibly secure their co-operation, which is most essential.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these mills have been established in many parts of Nigeria, which has enabled many women who were previously employed on old methods of milling to be transferred to new methods, with successful results?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.
Following is the reply:
The introduction of pioneer palm-oil mills in the Eastern Provinces has been proceeding for some time, and 18 mills are at present in operation. During 1950 the Regional Production Development Board negotiated leases of sites for additional mills and work has been proceeding smoothly except in the Abak and Itu Divisions of Calabar Province. In the former Division a crowd of women gathered to protest against a site being leased to the Board and invaded a native court. There were subsequently minor disturbances in Itu Division and one native authority was attacked

while sitting in council, members were assaulted and damage was done. Some arrests were made. Objections to the mills appear to be due to fear of competition and loss of employment by hand operators.
As the Board has repeatedly stated its intention of establishing mills only in areas where they are acceptable to the people the programme for mills in these two Divisions has been abandoned for the time being. Efforts are being continued by the Administration to persuade the people of the future benefits which these mills will bring to the palm-oil industry.

European Development Officers

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what opportunities are given in Nigeria for promotion and training to the European development officers.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Development officers who have the necessary qualifications are considered for transfer to the administrative or technical branches of the Government service. Eleven officers have secured such appointments during the past year.

Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend think it possible that by special courses these development officers might become administrative officers at the end of 10 years' service?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. As I have indicated some have already developed in that way.

Co-operative Mission (Report)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of Nigerians is being drawn to the report of the recent Co-operative Mission from this country, so that they may learn that the charges of unfair discrimination against African co-operative societies by importers have little or no foundation in fact.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The report has been published by the Nigerian Government and is on sale to the public.

Mr. Keeling: Yes, but could I have an answer to my Question?

Mr. Griffiths: I was asked whether the attention of the Nigerians is being drawn to the publication of the report. My reply referred to that.

Mr. G. B. Craddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will ask the Governors of the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone why the reports of the Co-operative Mission which at his invitation visited those Colonies last year have, unlike the similar Nigerian Report, not been published.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I will write to the hon. Member when I receive the Governors' replies.

Capital Investment

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how far it is his policy to encourage the investment of British and American capital in the Gold Coast; and what steps he proposes to take to counteract the discouraging effects of statements made by the Convention People's Party that outside capitalist enterprises will be nationalised.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In the debate of 9th November on the Colonial Development and Welfare Bill I made it clear that the investment of capital from outside sources in the colonial territories will be welcomed. This applies equally to the Gold Coast, and the Governor emphasised in a recent speech to the Legislative Council the necessity of maintaining conditions of security and confidence in order that capital and technical assistance may be forthcoming. I believe that this necessity is apparent to the majority of African leaders.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that the Colonial Development Corporation, in their last Report, said that they were unwilling to invest money in the Gold Coast so long as the present political atmosphere exists? If that attitude is taken by the Colonial Development Corporation, can the right hon. Gentleman expect private investors to put any money into the Gold Coast?

Mr. Griffiths: I dealt with that matter in the debate we had recently. It is a matter which is better dealt with at some length rather than in an answer to a question.

Sir R. Acland: Is this an attempt by the big firms in the City to impose a control on the economic policy of the Gold Coast by threatening to withhold capital if that policy is not what they desire?

Stadium, Enugu

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what grants have been made by the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund to the building of the Enugu stadium; and what further grant will be made in respect of its completion.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am ascertaining from the Acting Governor whether any grant for this specific purpose has been or is to be made from the Colonial Development and Welfare grant for town planning and reconstruction generally. I will write to my hon. Friend when I receive his reply.

Togoland Union (Elections)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the protest of the Togoland Union to the United Nations Trusteeship Council in view of the objection of the registration of Ewe people for the Gold Coast elections; and if he is now aware of the reason for the absence of five of the 17 members from the Anglo-French Consultative Committee meeting.

Mr. J. Griffiths: These matters are being investigated by the Governor and I am awaiting his report.

Mr. Sorensen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been considerable delay in this matter, and that I put a question down some months ago, was promised a reply, and have not yet received it?

Mr. Griffiths: This is a very difficult matter. I do not think that there has been delay. This question must be considered very carefully. I certainly do not want to delay a final decision and I will do my best to expedite the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Special Constable's Death (Pension Claim)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds he has delayed reconsideration of Mrs. Becker's claim for pension promised in June last; whether he is aware that at the inquest on her husband's death the


coroner drew attention to the negligence of the Malay police constable; and if he will expedite this matter.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There has been no delay in reconsidering Mrs. Becker's claim. The allegation at the inquest of negligence on the part of the police was fully investigated by the Singapore Government, who are satisfied that there was no foundation for the charge. As the hon. Member is aware, I have asked the Governor of Singapore to expedite reconsideration of this case.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that representations were made by me as long ago as March, that it is now December and that Mr. Becker was killed some considerable time before my original representations were made? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is very fair treatment of a man who was in the special volunteer police in Malaya?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Lady knows, and I should like the House to understand, that the Government have made an ex gratia payment in the case of Mr. Becker. As I have indicated, the Governor is reconsidering the matter and I will certainly ask him to let me have a reply as soon as possible.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman stress the urgency of "as soon possible" as this gallant man was killed nearly 2½ years ago and the ex gratia payment, however welcome, is wholly inadequate to the need and quite different from what would have been done had a special constable been killed in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Griffiths: I have asked for the matter to be settled as soon as possible.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex gratia payment to which he refers barely covered the out-of-pocket expenses of Mrs. Becker in going to Singapore to claim her rights?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not want to discuss this ex gratia payment. I have had some experience of this in our own country. I do not think it was too bad an ex gratia payment, but the matter is being reconsidered and I will see that it is dealt with as soon as possible.

Elections

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is proposed that elections for local authorities should be held in Malaya.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is hoped that a start will be made next year with elections in the municipalities of Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Malacca.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of holding the elections as early as possible if we are to convince the people of Malaya that we intend to give them self-government within a reasonable time?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, I am very conscious of that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Without in any way going back on our constitutional intentions, will the right hon. Gentleman see that time is not spent by hard-worked officials in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore on proposed changes which, at this moment, could be better spent on ending the war in Malaya?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

Salaries Commission (Report)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the report of the Benham Salaries Commission of the Federation of Malaya, with particular reference to the benefits recommended for Europeans and Malays, respectively.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Report of the Benham Salaries Commission was adopted by the Legislative Council of the Federation of Malaya at its meeting on 21st November, subject to reservation of certain posts on which further consultation between the Federation and Singapore Governments and myself is required, and with a proviso that the staff concerned may opt for direct negotiation within four weeks. With regard to the last part of the Question, I must point out that the Report does not affect the present practice by which the same basic salary applies to a post whether it be held by a European or by an Asian.

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable discontent among Asians with technical ability because Europeans doing exactly


the same jobs as themselves are getting paid more than they are? Can he explain how he justifies this racial discrimination?

Mr. Griffiths: They are paid the same basic salary, but there is for the expatriate officer an expatriate allowance and, without this, it would be impossible to recruit the necessary Europeans.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a 50 per cent. expatriate allowance is usual for people who work outside their own country?

Military Operations (Consultations)

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on his recent official consultations with General Sir Harold Briggs on Malaya.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I apologise for the length of this answer. My talks with the High Commissioner and the Director of Operations were concerned generally with methods of speeding up the progress of the operations against the Communist terrorists in Malaya and, in particular, with measures which might be taken by His Majesty's Government to assist the Government of the Federation of Malaya in carrying out these operations. Special attention was paid to the recruitment of additional staff in certain grades and to the expedition of the delivery from this country of essential supplies. I am glad to say that general agreement was reached with Sir H. Gurney and General Briggs at all discussions and that steps to give effect to this have already been taken.
The question of financial assistance to the Federation was also discussed. I am in further consultation with the High Commissioner and hope to make a further statement very shortly.
In Malaya new measures to be taken by the Federation Government to intensify operations against the terrorists were announced by the Officer Administering Government in Legislative Council on 21st November. Regulations are being enacted giving the Government full powers when necessary to conscript and direct labour. The Federal War Council is being strengthened by the inclusion of leaders of the Malay and Chinese communities and a representative of the planters. Expatriate officers are being

asked to accept a further curtailment of their leave and, in order to release officials for more urgent tasks, all office work is to be reduced by postponing everything which can be postponed without detriment to the campaign or to the well-being of Malaya. Sir William Jenkin, a man with long and extensive experience of C.I.D. and Special Branch work has been appointed as Director of Intelligence in the Federation Police Force. All these measures were unanimously approved by the Legislative Council.

Squadron Leader Burden: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, may I ask him to ensure that these agreements are carried out? May I further ask whether one of the questions under discussion was the shortage of C.I.D. officers, and whether he is satisfied that the position will be put right? What measures are to be taken to increase the recruitment of trained C.I.D. officers for Malaya?

Mr. Griffiths: The recruitment of fully qualified and experienced C.I.D. men is one of the most difficult problems. We had discussions and arrived at decisions as to how we thought that requirement could best be met. I feel confident that we shall be able to meet the requirements that have been askd for.

Commander Noble: The right hon. Gentleman said that certain equipment that was outstanding was discussed. Is he aware that the Minister of Defence last week led us to believe that there was no equipment outstanding? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance on that point?

Mr. Griffiths: I was referring to equipment generally, not military equipment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise, as I hope he does, that the Opposition also have entire confidence in Sir Henry Gurney and General Briggs, and are glad that the conversations have been so successful?

Mr. Gammans: Could the Secretary of State assure the House that there is no delay whatever in supplying radio equipment for the police, and also barbed wire for the planters?

Mr. Griffiths: I would not say that there is no delay whatever. There was some delay. We have now discussed that


with those concerned and I think that we have found a way of overcoming those delays.

CYPRUS (NEWSPAPER)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the new proprietor of the "Neos Democratis" newspaper, Cyprus, has been required to deposit £500 in cash to secure the bond furnished by him under the Press Law, 1947.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Cyprus Press Law requires a newspaper proprietor to furnish a bond for £500 "with one or more sureties or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of the Colonial Secretary" in order to ensure payment of any penalty or damages payable as a result of proceedings for libel or under the Press Law. In the case of "Neos Democratis" the Colonial Secretary decided that without a cash deposit the bond would be insufficiently secured.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not a fact that sureties were available in this case, and could my right hon. Friend look at it again to make sure that there are precedents for this requirement and that it is not merely an attempt to handicap the paper in some way?

Mr. Griffiths: I understand that it is within the law. I should tell my hon. Friend that the previous record of this proprietor and newspaper has made this necessary. Both of them have been before the courts on more than one occasion.

TANGANYIKA (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Europeans are at present unemployed in Tanganyika.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have asked the Governor for this information, in so far as it may be available, and will write to the hon. Member when I receive his reply.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: While appreciating that there are vast opportunities in Tanganyika for the right people in properly

organised businesses, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will make sure that the people taken out to those countries by the Overseas Food Corporation are not left with any sense of resentment against this Government?

Mr. Griffiths: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Soil Conservation

Mr. John Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what public funds are allocated by the Government of North Rhodesia for the purposes of soil conservation in European areas and for soil conservation and development of cooperatives in African areas, respectively.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I will ask the Governor of Northern Rhodesia for this information and will communicate with my hon. Friend when the reply is received.

Mr. Hynd: Does my right hon. Friend know whether the African Farming Improvement Fund is being used at all for the purpose of soil conservation in the European areas?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that that arises out of the Question. If my hon. Friend will put it down, I will certainly be very glad to answer it.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the right hon. Gentleman find out what proportions of these public funds is met by the European and the African populations respectively?

Mr. Griffiths: I will seek that information.

Farming Improvement Fund

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the composition of the body responsible for the allocation of the North Rhodesian African Farming Improvement Fund; how many Africans are included in this body and how they are chosen.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The committee which administers the African Farming Improvement Fund consists of the Director of Agriculture, who is the Chairman, the Commissioner for Native Development, three officials from the provincial Administration, one of the unofficial


members of Legislative Council nominated to represent African interests and two African members who represent the African farmers. I am making inquiries of the Governor about the method of appointment and will communicate with my hon. Friend when the reply is received.

Mr. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend look into this question, in view of the fact that the Farming Improvement Fund is made up of contributions from the African farmers, and satisfy himself that the Africans have sufficient representation to reassure them that the Fund is being used in their interests?

Mr. Griffiths: I am very anxious to do all I can to reassure the Africans on that point.

GIBRALTAR (COST-OF-LIVING BONUS)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that claims for an increased cost of living bonus for Gibraltar locally-entered non-industrial staffs of the Colonial Government and Defence Ministries have been outstanding since 19th May, 1950, and that according to the Defence Ministries, decisions on these claims cannot be reached until a report is received from the Colonial Secretariat; and whether he will take action to secure an early report from the authorities in Gibraltar in order to bring the long delay to an end.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am aware that last April the Gibraltar Civil Service Association claimed an increase in the local cost-of-living bonus. Shortly afterwards it was announced that the existing bonus was to be consolidated into pensionable salaries with effect from 1st January, 1950. Examination of the claim here was complicated by this consolidation and necessarily took time. I have been in consultation with the Governor and I know that he is anxious to reach a decision as soon as possible.

Commander Noble: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when a decision will be reached on this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: Very shortly, I hope.

MALTA (DREDGER)

Commander Noble: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a dredger has been purchased for use in Malta in accordance with Scheme 1247 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts; and what progress has been made in this scheme.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand that an order for a dredger has recently been placed in the United Kingdom by the Malta Government through the Crown Agents for the Colonies, but that the vessel has not yet been delivered.

Oral Answers to Questions — UGANDA

Railway Extension

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how the new Uganda railway extension from Kampala to Fort Portal is being financed.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No decision has been taken to extend the railway to Fort Portal. It is, however, proposed, subject to the approval of the Uganda Legislative Council and the East African Central Legislative Assembly, to extend the railway some 50 miles from Kampala to Mityana. This would be financed by the East African Railways and Harbours Administration under guarantee by the Uganda Government. Any extension beyond Mityana will depend on the results of economic and engineering surveys now being arranged.

Mr. Hynd: In view of the length of time this project has been considered, and the urgent technical reasons why it should now be given special consideration, will the Secretary of State consider the desirability of this extension in present circumstances; and will he make a statement to the House when it has been decided to go on with it?

Mr. Griffiths: I am very anxious indeed to do everything we possibly can to facilitate the provision of better communications in Africa, which is one of our most urgent problems. With regard to the extension beyond Mityana, I would rather wait to hear the result of the investigations which are now proceeding.

Trade Unions

Mr. Alport: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African trade unions were struck off the register in Uganda in 1949; how many African trade unions are on the register in that territory; and what were the reasons for the striking off of the Uganda Transport and General Workers Trade Union and the Uganda African Motor Drivers' Association.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Two trade unions, which were those mentioned in the last part of the Question, were removed from the register during 1949, in both cases because they had ceased to function. There are at present no African trade unions on the Uganda register.

Mr. Alport: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that a progressive Colony like Uganda has no trade unions is very disturbing, in view of the present policy of the Government in this respect?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I am most anxious to see trade unions develop in all the colonial territories.

Mr. Alport: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been no further development of trade union activity in Uganda?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a question on that, I will try to give him an answer.

Mr. Musazi

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make a statement on the case of Mr. Musazi.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) on 25th October.

Mr. Grimond: Does that mean that Mr. Musazi cannot return to his home, or that he would run certain risks if he did so?

Mr. Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier reply. The man came to this country some time ago in circumstances which I described in that reply. The view of the Governor, which I share, is that he ought not to go back.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend willing to consider new evidence and considerations in this matter?

Mr. Griffiths: I do not think that I could consider new evidence produced now, two years after the investigation.

Mr. Awbery: Can my right hon. Friend say under what conditions this man could return?

Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA

Widows' and Orphans' Pension Scheme

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when an actuarial investigation was last made into the East African Widows' and Orphans' Pension Scheme in Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar; and if these sums are kept in a special account.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The last investigation was completed in August, 1948. The problems raised by the report of the Government actuary are of considerable complexity and the Governments concerned have not yet been able to form their final views on the results of the investigation. Meantime most of the Governments are placing the contributions, which are payable into revenue, in special deposit accounts.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that the figures produced by this investigation show that far more money is being accumulated than is likely to have to be paid out according to the present actuarial tables?

Mr. Griffiths: I would rather wait until I have the views of the Governors on the report.

Primary Education, Kenya

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will define the part that the voluntary agencies are to play in the development of African primary education in Kenya; and, in particular, whether new schools to be built and equipped by African local native councils will be run by the missions.

Mr. J. Griffiths: It is the policy of the Government of Kenya to continue to work through voluntary agencies in the


reorganisation and expansion of African education. African local native councils will continue to run their own schools though they may make grants towards building and equipping voluntary agency schools. Increased inspection and supervision will ensure that these schools maintain the required standards of educational efficiency.

Mr. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while Africans are very much indebted to the missions for the work they have done in the past, and for the work being done today, they feel that the time has now come when they could play a much larger part and organise their own services?

Mr. Griffiths: I have no doubt that in the future that will be the line of development.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Cost of Living

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what rise has taken place in the cost of living in Mauritius from 1948 to 1950.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There are six separate cost of living indices in Mauritius relating to different classes of wage earners. In September, 1950, five of these indices stood at almost exactly the same level as in June, 1948, and one had risen by 3 per cent.

Land Rents (Control)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what control is exercised by the Government of Mauritius over the rents of land which they have leased to private individuals or companies; and what proportion of Government leased land is used for hunting purposes.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am consulting the Governor on the subject and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as I have received his reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

W.R.N.S. (Training)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what training, voluntary or compulsory, is

available to officers and ratings on the Reserve of the Women's Royal Naval Service.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): There is no compulsory training, but voluntary refresher courses for certain specialist officers are now in progress. Further courses will start in January.

Commander Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman pay great attention to the importance of training for these people, especially those in the technical branches?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. The courses that are starting in January will, to some extent, be for the technical branches.

Royal Marines (Pay Code)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the new pay code for the Royal Marines has yet been introduced; and if he will publish details of it in HANSARD or as a White Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that it may be possible to make an announcement at an early date.

Fleet (Statistics)

Mr. Donner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and motor torpedo boats separately, have been sold, and how many scrapped, since the end of the war; and how many of those sold were sold to foreign countries.

Mr. Callaghan: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Donner: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? In view of the heavy depletion in our naval strength and the virtual certainty, in the event of war, of naval operations in narrow waters, with the inevitable losses which follow, will he state why the Government will not lay down a single additional cruiser?

Mr. Callaghan: That seems very wide of the original Question.

Following is the answer:


BATTLESHIPS, ETC., SOLD OR SCRAPPED SINCE THE END OF THE WAR


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)


—
Scrapped
Sold
Sold to Foreign Countries (included in (3))
Sold or disposed of to Commonwealth Countries (included in (3))


Battleships

…
…
11
—
—
—


Aircraft Carriers
…
…
2
2
1
1


Cruisers
…
…
…
28
2
1
1


Destroyers
…
…
123
25
14
11


Frigates
…
…
…
42
48*
33*
15


Motor Torpedo Boats
…
18
196
10
—


* Includes I given to Burma.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what changes have been made in the disposition of His Majesty's ships in the categories, "Active Fleet," "Training and Experimental, etc.," and "In Reserve," since the publication of the First Lord of the Admiralty's statement explanatory of the Navy Estimates, Command Paper No. 7897.

STRENGTH OF THE FLEET EXCLUDING AIRCRAFT CARRIERS


—
Active Fleet
Training and Special Duties
In Reserve


Battleships
…
…
…
—
VANGUARD
ANSON HOWE DUKE OF YORK KING GEORGE V


Cruisers
…
…
…
…
13
2
11


Destroyers
…
…
…
27
17
68 (a)


Frigates
…
…
…
…
34
15
115


Monitors
…
…
…
—
—
2


Submarines
…
…
…
35
—
25 (b)


Minesweepers
…
…
…
13
2
48


Fast Minelayers
…
…
…
—
—
3


(a) Includes one for transfer to Roval Pakistan Navy.


(b) Includes two on loan to Royal Netherlands Navy.

Royal Marine Commando (Operations, Korea)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will publish in HANSARD a summary account of the part so far played in the Korean campaign by the 41st Independent Commando, Royal Marines, including a statement on the present whereabouts and function of this unit and the number of casualties sustained.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I am arranging for this to be done.

Mr. Callaghan: As regards aircraft carriers, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) on 6th December. To show the changes in other classes of His Majesty's ships I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Mr. Driberg: Without raising undue hopes, can my hon. Friend say whether the news announced last Friday afternoon, that a number of Marines who had been thought lost had, in fact, been rescued, may enable him to diminish somewhat the terribly long list of those missing which was published earlier the same day?

Mr. Callaghan: I am afraid not. No operational reports have yet been received about this fighting. I can say, however, that seven other ranks who were reported missing are now known to have been


either wounded or killed. That is as far as I can go.
Following is the account:
41st Independent Commando R.M. (Lieut.- Colonel D. B. Drysdale, M.B.E., R.M.) arrived in Japan by air in early September as the result of a request from the American naval commander in the Far East for troops for special commando type operations against North Korea. Several naval and Marine volunteers from the Far East Fleet joined up with the Commando on its arrival. The unit was completely equipped by the Americans whilst in Japan.
Within four days of their arrival in Japan a detachment of the Commando—1 officer and 14 other ranks—left to take part in an operation in the Inchon area. They left Japan on 10th September with a Special Operations company of the U.S. Army and took part in a beach reconnaisance on the night of 12/13th September to the south of Inchon. On 18th September the detachment landed at Inchon with the U.S. Special Operations company and subsequently took part in several successful operations in the Seoul area. The detachment returned to Japan on 2nd October.
The Commando then came under the command of the Commander Naval Forces Far East (Admiral Joy U.S.N.) and made three successful raids on the East Coast of Korea from U.S. ships. The first raid took place on the night of lst/2nd October and was against enemy railway communications North East of Shako. Four officers and 63 other ranks were landed, including the commanding officer. A section of the embankment under the railway line was demolished and two tunnels were mined. During this raid minor opposition from poorly armed police was encountered. One Marine was killed.
The second raid was on the night of 6th/7th October, when two troops of the Commando landed under the command of Major D. L. St. M. Aldridge, R.M., at Churonjang. A rail and road tunnel was blown up with two tons of explosive and completely blocked. One non-commissioned officer was killed during this raid.
The third raid took place on the following night (7th/8th October) when the same two troops, who had landed the previous night, landed again. This raid was directed against a rail and road bridge and a tunnel and resulted in the bridge being blown and the tunnel partially blocked. Minor opposition was encountered and a tunnel guard shot. There were no casualties to the landing forces.
In these three raids from United States ships the greatest possible co-operation was given by the captains, officers and ships' companies of the ships concerned. The Commando concentrated as a complete unit in Japan on 14th October, 1950, and carried out a period of training. On 16th November the Commando left Japan to join the First Marine Division (U.S. Marine Corps) in the Choshin reservoir area. They had to fight their way up Hungnam-Hagaru Road and suffered fairly heavy casualties in the process; they have now been successful in fighting their way back to Hungnam:

no operational reports have yet been received on the latest fighting. The Commando is still serving with the First Marine Division.
The casualties so far reported, including those mentioned above, are:


Officers:







Killed in Action
…
…
…
1


Wounded in Action
…
…
2


Missing
…
…
…
…
1


Other ranks:







Killed in Action
…
…
…
12


Wounded in Action
…
…
33


Missing
…
…
…
…
26


The next-of-kin have been informed.

Personnel, Korea and Japan

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps he is taking to ensure that Naval personnel in Korea and Japan receive the necessary form of declaration F/Vote/33 in order that their votes may be recorded when necessary.

Mr. Callaghan: Naval personnel in Korea and Japan were included in a general order on this subject issued on 18th August, 1950. This directed that a check was to take place in all ships and establishments during September, 1950, and that a declaration form was to be handed to all men and women eligible to vote who were found not to have registered.

Shipyards (Contracts)

Mr. Oakshott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the machinery for allocating contracts to shipyards under the naval refitting programme.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): As regards that part of the programme which is beyond the capacity of the Royal dockyards, the allocation of contracts is made after consultation with the other Departments principally concerned.

Mr. Oakshott: Is the Civil Lord aware that the Merseyside yards did not get their fair share in the recent programme, and, in view of the unemployment already existing in that area, will he give an assurance that they will get their full and proper share of any future contracts?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot agree that the Merseyside yards are not getting their fair share. I would inform the hon. Gentleman that we are getting requests from


all the other ship repairing districts in the country, who are all saying that they are not getting their fair share.

Base, Trincomalee

Mr. Deedes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will make a statement regarding the future of Trincomalee as a naval base.

Mr. Callaghan: The Royal Naval Base at Trincomalee is maintained as the base of the East Indies Squadron with the agreement of the Ceylon Government, under the terms of the Defence Agreement, 1947, between the United Kingdom and the Ceylon Governments. This Agreement provides that the United Kingdom Government may base such forces in Ceylon as may be mutually agreed.

Squadron Leader Burden: With due respect, is the Minister aware that he has not definitely answered the Question? Is there any intention on the part of the Government to relinquish keeping our fleet there or using Trincomalee harbour?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member asked me to make a statement and that is what I have done.

RAW COTTON SUPPLIES

Mr. Burke: asked the Prime Minister whether his talks in Washington included consideration of the reduced supplies of raw cotton to this country; and what are the prospects of securing an increase in supplies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would ask my hon. Friend to await the debate which will take place tomorrow.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (SPEECHES)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Prime Minister what special instructions he has recently given to Ministers of the Crown, in the light of the delicate international situation, to arrange that any speeches made by them on foreign policy are in line with the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I think I can ask the House to leave to my discretion the

means by which I am to preserve collective responsibility among my Cabinet colleagues.

Mr. Blackburn: While in no way desiring to make any personal remarks in this connection, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not at least indicate that at this moment it is his desire that any speeches which are made on foreign policy by Ministers of the Crown are in accordance with the high standard which he himself and the Foreign Secretary have set?

The Prime Minister: It is desirable that anybody who speaks on international affairs today should speak with a due sense of responsibility.

FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN (CATERING)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make it a condition of all leases of restaurants in the Festival of Britain exhibition proper that only British and Empire wines, spirits, meads, liqueurs, beers and ciders shall be displayed and sold.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir.

Brigadier Rayner: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? Is it not the whole aim and object of "Operation Festival" to boost everything British? According to my information, a great deal of French wine has been laid in already?

Mr. Morrison: The statement made in that supplementary question is partly true; but it is also a purpose of the Festival to illustrate the British way of life and, as far as I know, the British way of life includes the drinking of French and other wines. Why we should go fraudulent and "phoney" when we exhibit ourselves to the rest of the world. I do not know.

Mr. James Hudson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that we are trying to advance the British way of life, and that there is a very considerable number of people in Britain who do not need alcoholic beverages at all?

Mr. Morrison: I must confess that, for the moment, I had forgotten my hon. Friend, and I am very glad that he has


reminded me of himself. I can assure him that there will be adequate supplies of mineral waters and of Metropolitan Water Board water as well.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that, when he and his friends are consuming these expensive French wines they do not do so when "dripping with furs"?

Mr. Morrison: The House recognises that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is one of our most crude party political propagandists, both inside and outside the House and on the wireless, and the House will take him at his relative importance.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend equally refute any suggestion that the food sold at the Festival should be confined to home-grown foods, or that all the manufactured goods displayed should be made from home-produced raw materials?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think my hon. Friend's question is quite relevant to the original Question. As to the consumption of foreign wines, I could bet on which side of the House the greater proportion would go.

Brigadier Rayner: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to see that other British liquors, including mead, get a fair show?

Mr. Morrison: We will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Military Operations, Korea

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of the present military situation in Korea, he intends to call up any additional reservists.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Shinwell): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Merton and Morden (Captain Ryder) and the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. A. R. W. Low) on 29th November, though the position will, of course, be kept under review in the light of developments.

Brigadier Clarke: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate how much the international situation has deteriorated since he last gave that answer?

Mr. Shinwell: That is all the more reason for my present answer.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied with the system of security which governs the broadcasting and publication of news about the movements of British Forces in Korea; and whether, in the present circumstances, he is prepared to suggest that these arrangements be reviewed.

Mr. Shinwell: The publication of news about the movements of all United Nations Forces in Korea, including the British Forces, is under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations Forces in Korea. I am, however, fully alive to the considerations which have prompted the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some disparity in the security arrangements governing news about our troops in Korea and our troops in Malaya? Is he satisfied that the arrangements in the first case are adequate? Could he not arrange for our troops in Malaya to get a better show?

Mr. Shinwell: I will look into that.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the report about valuable equipment being left behind by our Forces in Korea? I think the House was rather shocked to read that a Centurion tank and other equipment had been left behind and that full details were given of the position in which it had been left, so that the enemy would be able to make a study of the equipment.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot find anything in this Question about Centurion tanks.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the Minister say if there are representatives of the three Services available to the B.B.C. to advise them before the publication of the news?

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot say offhand.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say if it is the case, as announced this morning, that new censorship arrangements have now been introduced in Korea and Tokyo; and is he aware that most newspapers and most responsible correspondents would have welcomed such a censorship, on the ordinary security grounds, from the beginning?

Mr. Shinwell: I have seen the newspaper report, but I have no official confirmation.

Military Equipment

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence how much of the additional equipment, aircraft, armoured vehicles and unarmoured vehicles, which was ordered under the Government's July and August rearmament programmes, will be ready for use before 31st March, 1951.

Mr. Shinwell: It would not be in the public interest to say what additional deliveries can be made by 31st March, 1951; they will, of course, be very small in relation to the whole programme.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is not in the public interest to tell us and the public how his programme, the order part of which has been announced, is being fulfilled?

Mr. Shinwell: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman himself would be well aware of the reason why I cannot give a more detailed answer.

Recruitment

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Defence how many men were recruited to the Regular Forces during October and November; and how these figures compare with previous years.

Mr. Shinwell: During October, 1950, 9,284 men entered the Forces on Regular engagements. This figure compares with 7,565 in October. 1947, 7,311 in 1948 and 3,624 in 1949. Returns of Regular recruiting to the three Services for the month of November, 1950, are not yet complete.

Mr. Low: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many men, in addition to the 9,000-odd which he has just announced, were provisionally accepted in October? Will he bear in mind that, when he last gave an answer on this matter to the House, he made a great point of the fact that a substantial additional number of men had been provisionally accepted?

Mr. Shinwell: I have not got the answer with me, but, if the hon. Gentleman will put down that question or will write to me on the subject, I will try to give him the information.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does this mean that the increased pay so far has only brought in 500 a week?

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say why recruiting for the Royal Navy was lower for the third quarter of this year than it was in the second?

Service Pensions

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Defence what proposals he has for making an upward revision of Service pensions to bring them into line with recent increases in pay.

Mr. Shinwell: This matter is under consideration.

Regulars and Reservists

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Defence the length of the period during which he intends retaining the services of Regulars whose engagements have expired and Reservists who have been recalled to the colours.

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. I am not yet able to make any statement.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his decision on this matter is in any way dependent on the announcement of the Minister of Fuel and Power yesterday that coal miners will no longer be called up?

Mr. Shinwell: It has nothing to do with that at all. I must take account of the international position.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that? Is the delay due to the compiling of the necessary figures to reach a decision in the Minister's Department or to the fluidity of the campaign? Are these men to understand that, while the campaign is fluid, there will be no decision?

Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. There is no reason why the men should assume that no decision will be reached, and reached shortly, but while the campaign is fluid it would be unwise to come to a definite decision at this stage.

Intelligence Service, Korea

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Defence to what extent United States technical intelligence reports are being made available to British Service Departments.

Mr. Shinwell: There are satisfactory arrangements for the exchange of information in this field, and co-operation is excellent.

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the work of British technical intelligence teams now operating in Korea.

Mr. Shinwell: It would not be in the public interest to make any statement.

Squadron Leader Burden: Is it not a fact that it is known that we have technical intelligence teams? Why is it not in the public interest to give the information when these teams will merely examine captured enemy equipment and inform our own Service chiefs and armaments manufacturers about it and enable them to learn lessons from such examination?

Mr. Shinwell: We must wait for an official statement coming from headquarters. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Obviously, I must wait. I could not answer the question unless I am quite certain that the answer is correct.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Pig Meat

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food what loss is sustained by the producer when pigs bought by his Department are found to be unfit for human consumption owing to disease.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Webb): Producers may sustain loss only in the relatively few cases in which their pigs are not covered by the insurance scheme. I am sending a leaflet to the hon. Member giving details of this scheme.

Fish Prices

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food whether he has yet decided to take action in regard to the high prices of fish.

Mr. Webb: As I have already said, I am very concerned about high fish prices. The reimposition of price control would present many problems; and a decision on this question cannot be taken without a very thorough examination. This is now in progress, and when it is concluded I shall decide, in the light of it, what is best in the public interest.

Mr. Janner: In view of the concern of housewives and others over the very high prices prevailing at present, will my right hon. Friend press for an early consideration of the matter and reimpose controls as quickly as possible?

Mr. Webb: I am considering the matter most urgently.

Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister say, categorically, that he is against cheap prices for fish at the expense of low wages for fishermen?

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the problems that the release of controls have brought to housewives? When he weighs these problems with his other problems, will he do so to the advantage of the housewives?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the committee examining the white fish industry is expected to report?

Mr. Webb: That is another question; I could not tell the hon. Lady.

Scarce Commodities (Distribution)

Mr. Mulley: asked the Minister of Food what steps he has taken, since the end of the points rationing scheme, to ensure a fair allocation, as between districts, of scarce commodities, such as biscuits, tinned fruit and tinned salmon; and how far supplies of these goods are allocated to districts in proportion to population, so that districts in which the number of shops and licences was reduced by enemy action, as Sheffield, are not at a disadvantage.

Mr. Webb: Methods of distribution to retailers were not altered by the abolition of points rationing. Canned salmon, dried fruit and imported canned fruits are still, for the most part, allocated to retailers in proportion to the number of their registered customers and are, therefore, supplied to each district in proportion to its population. I am quite satisfied that manufacturers and distributors are fairly distributing biscuits and other foods which were previously on points.

Mr. Mulley: While appreciating that my right hon. Friend has no direct control over the distribution of foods in the hands of the private trade, will he make


representations to them that, where necessary, they should revise their allocations in the light of the current pattern of demand and the current population, and not according to the number of shops?

Mr. Webb: If I receive information about a particular area, I shall be very pleased to look into the matter.

Mr. Peter Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that in Sheffield there has not been a fair allocation of these goods?

Mr. Webb: If I get any information about Sheffield, I will have the matter looked into.

—
Year ended 31st March, 1945
Year ended 31st March, 1947
Year ended 31st March, 1950





£
No.
£
No.
£
No.


Cattle
…
…
56,384,826
1,904,866
64,649,703
1,973,562
82,687,160
1,850,181


Calves
…
…
2,846,385
1,403,463
2,863,070
1,479,828
2,165,264
1,226,101


Sheep
…
…
22,433,646
6,756,514
25,823,704
6,974,471
35,776,197
6,586,376


Pigs
…
…
14,953,821
1,418,528
14,838,746
1,365,969
50,382,897
2,636,665

Home-Grown Food

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Food what percentage of our food is now being grown at home.

Mr. Webb: The answer depends on the test we apply. If we take calories, the figure for the year ended June, 1950, is 39 per cent.; if we take protein, 53 per cent.; if we take fats, 34 per cent.

Sugar Beet

Mr. E. Martin Smith: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the serious loss which is being caused to this year's sugar beet harvest due to farmers being unable to get their crops accepted by the factories; and what steps he proposes to take about it.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Member's Question gives, I regret to say, a wrong impression of the situation. It is true that we are facing a record crop, for which I am sure we are all grateful. It is also true that the factories are working to capacity and are accepting beet as fast as they can handle it. But no farmer has—or will have—his crop refused. The Corporation is bound to purchase all sugar beet offered within the terms of the growing contracts. Those contracts will

Livestock (Statistics)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Food what was the amount paid to British farmers for fat cattle, sheep and pigs, respectively; and what were the numbers of each bought for the 12 months ended 31st March in each of the following years, 1944–45, 1946–47 and 1949–50.

Mr. Webb: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:
The amounts paid to British farmers for fat cattle, calves, sheep and pigs and the numbers of each bought in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1945, 1947 and 1950 were as follows:

be carried out on a system of permits, giving access to the factories in turn—which has the full approval of the National Farmers' Union—and will be scrupulously adhered to. If there is any specific case of a local breakdown, I will look into it at once, if I am given details—but I repeat that no farmer need have any fear that his beet crop will not be used.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that when beet has been out of the ground for a certain time it loses much of its sugar content, especially in weather such as this, and that there has been a great loss of sugar already this year? Will he consider the building of further factories so that in other years the beet will not be lost?

Mr. Webb: Even if we built further factories, we should still have to have some beet coming in at the end of the season. If we built so many factories that they could deal with the beet in a few weeks, but remained idle for the rest of the year, that would be an uneconomic arrangement.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that the growers, who are at the end of the list,


have to wait until last to be paid? Will he therefore consider making some payment on account?

Mr. Webb: I am quite prepared to leave the scheme of payments to be worked out by the National Farmers' Union. They do, in fact, look after cases of injustice.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister look into the question of the King's Lynn factory because a considerable amount of sugar beet is being diverted from there to a factory elsewhere, resulting in a loss of sugar content?

Mr. Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the erection of a factory in the south of England would relieve the congestion of factories in the centre of England which, at present, are so congested that, as my hon. Friend says, there is a great loss of sugar beet by processing in January? Process should finish by the end of December.

Mr. Webb: We need so many things, including slaughterhouses and sugar factories; both those things have to take their turn in relation to the capital investment programme.

Manufacturing Meat

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food what changes he proposes to make in the grading of meat hitherto described as manufacturing meat in Instruction DMW 1/480, which indicates the imported meat and offal intended solely for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. Webb: As from 3rd December, two classes of beef formerly issued as manufacturing meat will again be issued on the ration.

Orange Juice (Schools)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food what requests he has received from food control committees to issue orange juice for infants' schools end-of-term Christmas parties; and if he is able to grant the requests.

Mr. Webb: Only one such request has been made. I am sorry that I cannot grant it because I have to keep all our supplies of orange juice for children under five and expectant mothers, who need it most.

Cider

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Food if he will now make it obligatory for cider makers clearly to state on the labels of cider bottles if the cider is made from foreign apples, pulp or juice.

Mr. Webb: It would, I am afraid, be impracticable to adopt this proposal, because it could not be enforced—and, anyway, I am averse to introducing needless controls.

Mr. Lambert: As the Minister will not protect the drinkers of cider and the producers of cider apples, will be prevent any cider apple juice or pulp being imported into this country while there is a gut of apples at home?

Mr. Webb: I could not give that guarantee.

Linseed

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of linseed and linseed cake was imported from Egypt in 1938 and during the last 12 months.

Mr. Webb: Three tons of linseed was imported from Egypt in 1938. No linseed cake was imported in that year. There have been no imports of either commodity from Egypt during the last 12 months.

Milk Distributors

Mr. Oakshott: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider including some of the small distributors of milk in rural and urban areas in those firms who are costed for calculating margins on retail milk distribution.

Mr. Webb: I have already informed the Central Milk Distributive Committee that I am prepared to add to the number of small dairymen included in the costings sample.

Home Canning (Tinplate)

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of tinplate is available to the British canning industry at the present moment.

Mr. Webb: The food canning industry will probably receive cans equivalent to about 33,000 tons of tinplate in the fourth quarter of this year.

Mr. Howard: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable


shortage of tinplate for this industry, and, while there is this shortage, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend to see that no tinplate is exported to Japan?

Mr. Webb: I am very well aware of the shortage of tinplate. It is a matter which is causing very great anxiety, and we are looking into it at the moment.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Minister aware that firms in Scotland are not even receiving their allocations, and can he ensure that all tinplate manufacturers will at least receive their full allocations?

Mr. Webb: In this matter we work in close association with the producers and users of tinplate, and I think the allocations are quite fair.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the Minister say whether the amount is less than last year, and, if so, what is the percentage reduction?

Mr. Webb: I would like a Question to be put down about that.

Mr. P. Roberts: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much is being exported at present?

Mr. Webb: That is another question.

FOOD RATIONING (CHANGES)

The Minister of Food (Mr. Maurice Webb): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I desire to give the House information concerning the purchase of meat from the Argentine.
As the House is aware, the Government have consistently refused since July last, to pay the higher prices which the Argentine authorities have asked for their meat, since they regard such prices as unreasonable. I am sorry to say that, despite our efforts and hopes, there has been no improvement in the position as regards these negotiations. No meat has been shipped from the Argentine for some months; home supplies have fallen with the onset of winter. It will, therefore, be necessary to reduce the meat ration from Sunday, 31st December, to a level of 1s. worth over-all, of which 10d. will be carcase meat and 2d. canned corned beef. There will be no change in

the existing allocation of manufacturing meat.
I regret to have to announce such unpleasant news, but I am sure that the House and the country will support our decision, which has been taken in the best interests of consumers. However, I am glad to say that I have better news of two other ration foods. I shall be able to increase the domestic sugar ration from 8 oz. to 10 oz. a week from 31st December and the cheese ration from 2 oz. to 3 oz. a week from 28th January. I intend also to increase sugar allocations to food manufacturers, and I am considering how far I can restore them to the level at which they stood before the domestic ration was reduced; but anything I can do in that way will have to wait until towards the end of January. I should, of course, like to be able to increase the bacon ration in January. I cannot as yet see the supplies available which would enable me to do so, but I am not unhopeful that some increase may be possible towards the end of January.

Mr. Eden: I have no doubt that the whole House will share the Minister's regret at the first part of his statement. With regard to the meat position, can he tell us whether there is any possibility of obtaining any meat from other quarters, particularly from the Commonwealth where, I know, plans are being worked out, and also from France which, I understand, has had, and in the future may have, supplies of meat available? I believe it is the desire of all of us to make ourselves independent, as far as we can, of this particular commitment, which always seems to treat us rather hardly.

Mr. Webb: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his question. We are, in fact, searching everywhere for extra supplies. We have had a small amount—5,000 tons—from France but in the main we are dependent on our traditional sources of supply. We get all we can from the Commonwealth, but this does happen to be one of their lower periods. They are doing all they can to help us, and the House can be sure that every ounce we can get we shall get to help us out of the difficulty.

Mr. Eden: Is the Minister sure that he has obtained all the meat he can get from France? I have heard rather a different


report—that the Ministry regard French meat as not so good in quality. I must say that, judging from what we get, it is a jolly sight better than we have here.

Mr. Webb: We are expecting to get some pork in January from France, but we must not think of it as being any very large quantity.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say whether negotiations with the Argentine have been broken off?

Mr. Webb: Yes, they have been broken off.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps he has taken to get meat from the Irish Free State—Eire—which is sending food to the Continent and the United States of America?

Mr. Webb: We are taking all the meat the Irish Free State are prepared to send us and we shall continue to do so.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement about a reduction in the meat ration will be an incentive to fish prices rising still further? Will he, therefore, control fish prices as soon as possible?

Mr. Webb: Obviously, in view of the meat situation, that is a fact that we must take into account in considering fish prices.

Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that a reduction of the meat ration stimulates quite abnormally, the consumption of bread and other forms of food?

Mr. Webb: Yes, indeed. We are aware of that and we are doing our best to supplement other sources of food supplies.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: What is happening about the import of meat from Uruguay?

Mr. Webb: We had expected to begin shipments of about 15,000 tons. We entered into arrangements with Uruguay last week. As the House may know, and hon. Members may have seen from the papers, the Argentine are trying to press them not to send that meat. We hope they will resume shipments.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Can the Minister assure the House that the whole of this

reduction is not being carried by the ordinary ration and that catering establishments are carrying a corresponding share of the cut?

Mr. Webb: All these arrangements are made on the basis of equality.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the Minister make a statement on the tea position? Is there likely to be a restoration or an increase in that direction?

Mr. Webb: If it had been possible I would have made that announcement today, but when it is possible it will be made.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Whatever the rights or wrongs of the Government's decision about trade in meat with the Argentine, do not three facts—one of which we had in Question time—first, that we are to get more manufacturing meat on the ration; second, that we are to have corned beef in winter; third, that the ration of carcase meat is to be reduced to an all-time low level, expose the wrongness of the Government's policy of State trading?

Mr. Webb: I should have thought that this situation would have driven any intelligent person to an entirely opposite conclusion.

MARSHALL AID (SUSPENSION)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gaitskell): I wish to inform the House of a joint statement which is being issued today by the United States and United Kingdom Governments. The statement is as follows:
After discussions between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. William L. Batt, Minister in Charge of the E.C.A. Mission to the United Kingdom, the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to the suspension of Marshall Aid to the United Kingdom from 1st January, 1951. In reaching this decision, the Governments have been guided by two considerations. First, the economic recovery of Britain and the sterling area as a whole has made such good progress that the dollar deficit has in recent months disappeared—an achievement which, coming early in the


third year of a four-year programme, is a source of profound satisfaction to both Governments. Secondly, the defence programme of the United States which includes the Mutual Defence Aid programme will now impose new and heavier demands upon her economy.
The total of allotments of aid to the United Kingdom for the six months ended 31st December, 1950, will remain at 175 million dollars, of which 150 million dollars represents conditional aid matching equal sterling grants made by the United Kingdom to other countries in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation through the European Payments Union. The United Kingdom will continue to draw upon these and previous allotments of aid until they are exhausted. Goods and services so financed will, therefore, be reaching Britain for some months to come. In all, since the beginning of Marshall Aid, the United Kingdom has been allotted a total of 2,694.3 million dollars.
The United Kingdom will remain a full participant in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and the European Payments Union. Certain E.C.A. programmes, in particular those for fostering overseas development, for the production of scarce materials, and for the interchange of technical knowledge to encourage higher productivity, will be maintained. The United Kingdom will continue to be eligible for assistance under these programmes, and the Economic Co-operation Agreement between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States will remain in force for the time being.
The two Governments are not yet in a position to assess the ultimate economic impact of their mutual defence efforts, and the suspension of E.R.P. allotments to the United Kingdom will in no way affect the arrangements which are now being worked out in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the assessment and distribution of the burden of the defence programmes of its members.
The suspension of aid under the European Recovery Programme does not mean that the recovery of the British economy is complete or that the financial resources of the sterling area are adequate. Both Governments recognise that part of the

improvement in the position of the sterling area is due to external factors which may well be temporary. Furthermore, new difficulties and burdens are certain to fall upon the British economy and balance of payments in 1951 as a result of the increased defence programme and the impact of higher raw material prices and prospective shortages. This understanding, therefore, provides for the suspension, and not the termination, of E.R.P. aid and for reconsideration if necessary. Nevertheless, the extent of the recovery already achieved demonstrates alike the immense value of the European Recovery Programme and the success of the efforts of the British people to meet and overcome the grave problems which they have had to face. The United States Government is especially pleased to see so prominent an example of the success of the European Recovery Programme at this early date.
His Majesty's Government desires to express on behalf of the whole nation its deepest gratitude to the Government and people of the United States for their unprecedented generosity in giving freely to Britain at a critical moment in history the means to regain her economic independence and power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
That is the end of the statement. It only remains for me to add that I am sure the whole House will give its warm approval to the sentiments expressed in the last paragraph. We are not an emotional people and we are not always very articulate. But these characteristics should not be allowed to hide the very real and profound sense of gratitude which we feel towards the American people, not only for the material help they have given us but also for the spirit of understanding and friendship in which it has been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Eden: I am sure the whole House will endorse the concluding paragraphs of the Chancellor's statement. No generosity could have been more freely given, or more warmly appreciated, than that of the United States to us in this immediate post-war period, and not only to us, but to a much wider sphere in the world. Equally, I think we accept that in the light of the heavier burdens which the United States is now carrying in so many spheres, it would neither be pos-


sible nor reasonable to ask of her a continuance of the aid on the same scale as we have enjoyed it. At the same time, may I ask whether the Government would agree—in fact, I think it is apparent from the terms of the statement that they do agree—first of all that this improved position is, in part at least—I would say an important part—due to fortuitous circumstances, the rise in the cost of certain raw materials, stock-piling and the consequence of that on the balance of payments? Therefore, while we rejoice that this is the position, we should not think it is due in a large part to circumstances other than passing circumstances—I do not know why that should amuse the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot).

Mr. Michael Foot: It amuses me very much because I was wondering when the right hon. Gentleman would pluck up courage to say that this remarkable economic recovery was due in part at least to the great productive effort of this country under a Labour Government.

Mr. Eden: Since the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to make that interjection, perhaps he has also done me the honour to read my speeches in which, over and over again, I have paid tribute to what has been done by our industry and, I have added, in the main by private enterprise industry.
Perhaps I may return to my topics which were not originally intended to be couched in a controversial tone. May I say that this is, in part at least, a temporary situation against which we must guard, and I have no doubt that the Government have this in mind. Finally, may I ask what will be the position as a result of this decision in respect of raw materials, some of which are indispensable to us, from the American continent, and upon which indeed, not only our national economy but our whole rearmament programme depend?

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, and I think the statement made it plain that there are undoubtedly temporary factors in the present situation. That is understood by the United States Government, and one, at least, of the reasons why Marshall Aid is suspended and not ended. We can if necessary, go back to them should the need arise, although, of course, we all hope it will not.
As regards raw materials, I think the right hon. Gentleman can be assured that the difficulty there will not arise, for the moment at any rate, from any scarcity of dollars, and will not therefore be affected by this decision. It is a problem of physical scarcities and one on which, as the Prime Minister said the other day, discussion took place in Washington.

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a list of those countries which were receiving Marshall Aid which have Conservative Governments, and which have been able to suspend it?

Mr. Gaitskell: The information is surely available to my hon. Friend. I should not have thought that it was necessary for me to publish a statement.

Mr. John Hynd: In view of the closing remarks of the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) with reference to the importance of the raw materials situation, having regard to the efficiency with which private enterprise has brought us through this difficulty, will my right hon. Friend leave that question entirely alone and leave it to private enterprise?

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in 1950, the chemical industry has imported very substantial quantities of goods under Marshall Aid? Can there be any assurance to the chemical industry that in view of this new announcement they will not suffer in any way during 1951?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think my answer to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington really covers that point. As far as I can see at the moment, there should be no difficulty in finding the necessary dollars to pay for the imports of raw materials. The great difficulty is physical shortage.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his statement means that, quite apart from the defence programme, in spite of the gloomy prognostications of the Opposition for five years this country has, in fact, achieved its independence of exceptional aid well within the period that we set ourselves to achieve it in when we began our programme?

Mr. Gaitskell: I think we should all agree that with the very great assistance of Marshall Aid and the efforts of our own countrymen, we have achieved a remarkable recovery in a much shorter time than seemed possible.

EAST AFRICA (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about Colonial Territories in East Africa.
As the House will be aware from my speech in the Colonial debate in July, I have been much exercised about the position in East Africa. Recently it has appeared to me that there has been a growing uncertainty throughout the area. I have, during the last few months, been considering the matter in consultation with my advisers and with the Governors who have been over here on leave or on visits, and have had the advantage of the views of the Minister of State, who has recently visited East Africa. I have come to the conclusion that it will be best to pursue the matter, for the time being at any rate, separately in each territory rather than on a general East African basis.
In Uganda there have very recently been constitutional changes which have increased the African membership of the Legislature from four to eight and which have provided for a measure of popular selection of those representatives. I feel that Uganda should develop in its own way, for its circumstances differ much from those both in Kenya and Tanganyika.
In Tanganyika a local committee is consulting all shades of opinion before making proposals for constitutional advance. I am sure the House will agree that the process of local consultation should be carried through before constitutional changes are made.
As regards Kenya, the Governor will, following on his discussions here, shortly be consulting with local opinion on the next steps. When he has carried out that consultation he will be in a position to put forward proposals and I hope then to be able to make a further statement to the House.
In the meantime it may be useful if I make clear certain basic principles of policy which must be observed:—
(i) As has been repeatedly stated by His Majesty's Government with the assent of all parties, our objective is self-government within the Commonwealth.
(ii) Self-government must include proper provision for all the main communities which have made their home in East Africa, but in the long run their security and well-being must rest on their good relations with each other. Good relations cannot flourish while there is fear and suspicion between the communities; it must therefore be our task to create conditions where that fear and suspicion disappear. In any constitutional changes in the direction of self-government, care must be taken to safeguard the proper rights and interests of all the different communities. Future policy must be worked out in full consultation with those who belong to the territories.
(iii) By our presence in these territories and by the assistance which we have given them in developing their resources we have set Africans on the path of political, social and economic progress and it is our task to help them forward in that development, so that they may take their full part, with the other sections of the community, in the political and economic life of the territories.
(iv) When Africans have reached that stage and the other communities feel secure as regards their future in East Africa, we can hope for a state of mutual confidence and harmony; that will be a sound basis for a Government in which all sections participate. It will be some time before that stage is reached and meanwhile it is essential that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom should continue to exercise their ultimate control in the East African territories. It is their firm intention to do so, while encouraging all reasonable freedom of action by the local Governments.
I would conclude by expressing the hope of His Majesty's Government—a hope in which I am sure the House will join—that all persons who are concerned with the future of these territories will


work together towards that goal of true partnership on which, and on which alone, the future prosperity and happiness of all in East Africa must depend.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While, of course, we must retain our freedom to consider this statement very carefully affecting, as it does, the future welfare of millions of our fellow-subjects in the British Empire, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that one of the most important parts of his statement was that proper provision must be made for all the main communities which have made their homes in East Africa? Does he realise that high in importance among these communities is the large British community which have made their homes in Kenya and Tanganyika and in future years are anxious to do so for their families as well, and without whom no development of that territory is likely in the future?

Mr. Griffiths: My statement was intended to cover that community. I would again express the hope that all communities in East Africa will realise that it depends upon developing true partnership together.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Can my right hon. Friend indicate to the House when it is likely that, following upon his statement, the new proposals will be announced?

Mr. Griffiths: I should not like to set a date. In Kenya the proposals have to come forward in such time as to make it possible to apply them in 1952. In Tanganyika the committee are now touring the country consulting local opinion. I could not set a date when they will be able to report.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Will these constitutional changes mean holding up any co-ordination of the services of the three Colonies, or will they proceed as previously intended?

Mr. Griffiths: The statement refers to the conditions in each individual territory and not to the co-ordinating work of the High Commission.

Colonel Ropner: I am surprised that the Minister says nothing about the unity of Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya. Are the Government of this country or the Minister himself not going to give any

lead with regard to this most important matter, which, so far as I know, is giving rise to more uncertainty about the future than any other matter?

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will know that there is a good deal of co-ordination between them through the East Africa Commission and they have a large number of common services. This statement does not refer to that. For the moment, from the point of view of political and constitutional development, I have come to the conclusion, for reasons I have set out in the statement, that at present it is best to proceed separately in each of the three countries.

Mr. Alport: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is practical and realistic to make a statement of the sort we have just heard without any reference whatever to the High Commission and apparently without taking into consideration the effects of constitutional developments in the various Colonies upon the High Commission? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider dealing with this aspect at an early date?

Mr. Griffiths: This statement was made after consultations which I had with the Governors concerned, about future constitutional advance, as I indicated in the statement. I thought it was necessary to make the statement at the present time because I hope it will help to create the necessary feeling of co-operation and harmony in which the next steps can be discussed between all concerned.

Mr. John Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether, in considering the future of the three territories, he has also taken into consideration the future status of Zanzibar and our Treaty with that territory?

Mr. Griffiths: This statement refers to the three territories I have mentioned.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that one object of his statement is to assure people that no hasty action will be taken in regard to pressing forward unduly with these schemes?

Mr. Griffiths: The statement is intended to create the atmosphere in which constitutional advance can proceed on the basis of inter-racial harmony and co-operation.

Mr. Brockway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong opposition of the Africans in Uganda and many other of the East African countries to any political unity of those countries?

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that, if we are to have the concord and harmony which he so much desires, the best way to achieve it is for people in this country who have no knowledge of these affairs to leave them very much to the people of those countries who do know?

Mr. Griffiths: That harmony depends upon what is done and what is said by people both here and in East Africa.

Mr. J. Hynd: Will the Minister look into the question of Zanzibar in this connection, in view of the fact that part of the territories with which he was concerned in his statement is involved with our Treaty with Zanzibar?

Mr. Griffiths: I will look at it again, as my hon. Friend desires.

MR. OLIVER STANLEY (TRIBUTES)

The Prime Minister: This week the House has lost one of its most distinguished and well-loved Members, Oliver Stanley, and I believe that we should all wish to express our sorrow and our sense of loss. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We in this House feel that we belong to a community and the bonds of friendship extend beyond the bounds of party, and when death takes any one of our Members we feel the loss and you. Mr. Speaker, express that on behalf of us all. But it is a well recognised practice that when Members who have held high positions in this House die, an opportunity should be given for tribute to be paid.
On occasions there are Members who, without having been leaders of parties or without being Ministers actually in office, have won such high esteem and affection that special respect is paid to them. I can recall the case of James Maxton and, in earlier days, there was the case of Mr. Alfred Lyttelton. I feel that Oliver Stanley commanded esteem and affection on all sides in this House and that we

would wish to pay our tribute to him today.
I recall very well when he entered as a young Member. He was one of the survivors of the war-time generation. He had distinguished himself in the field. He was, I know well, loved by the men whom he commanded. He came here with a great family tradition of service to the State, and it was soon evident to all of us that he would fully sustain the reputation of his family. He was clearly marked out for office, and, in due course, at a comparatively early age, he entered the Government; and then, for the greater part of 14 years, he filled many high offices, many of them very difficult offices.
His last office was, I think, perhaps the most congenial to him—that of Secretary of State for the Colonies. It was my privilege to be a colleague of his in that Government when he held that office, and I had an opportunity of knowing something of his work. I think he brought to that high office great diligence, high intellectual gifts, wide vision, and a great sympathy.
But I think that, most of all, the House will remember him as one of our foremost debaters. Quite early in his career he showed an exceptional quality, and year by year his powers grew, and in these last few years, in Opposition, he was certainly one of the outstanding debaters in the House. His speeches were cogent, well argued, well informed, fair, and spiced with wit—and it was a wit that did not smell of the lamp: it seemed to come spontaneously. And we, against whom his shafts were often directed, shared in the appreciation of his dexterity. There was not malice in his wit: we were all able to laugh together.
We had all hoped that he might have had a long career of service to this House and of service to his country, and it is a tragic thing that he should be struck down now in the plentitude of his powers. We all mourn him as a statesman, as a great public figure; but many of us who have been long in the House with him will also mourn him as a personal friend, as a man of delightful personality. We have lost a well loved Member, a great public servant, a distinguished ornament of this House, and I should like, on behalf of all of us on this side, to offer to his children and to his family our most sincere sympathy in their great loss.

Mr. Churchill: On this side of the House we are greatly obliged to the Prime Minister for his kindly tribute which he has paid to our late colleague. We are all also very glad that the Government in this matter have not been bound by a narrow view of the precedents for such a tribute. There have been exceptions, and they have been made in accordance with the general feeling of the House, which, in such matters, is probably the safest of guides. The Prime Minister has mentioned two outstanding cases where the exact forms were not observed, but where the feelings of the House desired an opportunity of corporate expression. Oliver Stanley may well be another of these exceptions.
The appreciations published in the newspapers of every hue show how widely understood and admired were his exceptional and outstanding gifts and qualities. Reading them must have been a comfort to his many friends in the House of Commons and throughout the land. He served at the front in the line as a regimental officer through many of the severities of the First World War. He filled great offices of State in peace and war.
I regretted very much that I could not persuade him to accept the Dominions Office at the time of the formation of the National Government. He preferred to rejoin his regiment. It was not until two years later that I was able to persuade him to allow me to submit his name as Secretary of State for the Colonies. This delay was not due to any breach in our personal friendship or in our political relations.
Oliver Stanley always set the interests of his country, as he conceived them, far above his personal fortunes or career. In the year before the war he wrote to Mr. Chamberlain advising him that the Government should be widened and strengthened in composition, and placing his own office at the Prime Minister's disposal in order to help such a process. I did not know about this for several years afterwards, but it is a remarkable example of his bearing and relationship to public life, and a proof of the high level upon which his actions proceeded.
He was indeed, as so many of us know, a delightful companion. His conversation never lost its dignity, even in casual talk, and he always preserved in

it the spark of the unexpected. His memory will long be cherished, and cherished most dearly by those who knew him best. Our keen sympathy, as the Prime Minister has said, goes out to his family and the children he has left behind him.
Oliver Stanley's career has been cut short in its prime. None the less, it is not lacking in the sense of completeness, because we have the presentation in an integral and matured form of his personality, of his gifts, and of his record that endures with us. On this side we have suffered a heavy party loss, and, many of us, a keen personal loss; but, as the Prime Minister has said, the House of Commons as a whole is conscious that Parliament is definitely and seriously the poorer by the untimely removal of this capable, experienced and attractive figure, who adorned our debates with a happy combination of wit and wisdom, and enriched our public life by high character, by disinterested public service, and by a commanding view of wide horizons.

Mr. Clement Davies: In this House where we differ in our views, and often differ very strongly, we learn, neverthless, to respect one another; and sometimes there arises amongst us a Member who not only commands the respect and admiration but who wins the affection of Members on every side of the House. Such was Oliver Stanley—shy, diffident, modest, conscientious, a brilliant debater, with wit which, as the Prime Minister has said, never hurt, and was certainly not intended to hurt. Even those of us who have quite often been his victims could chuckle with him. He was a gentle and perfect knight whose passing everyone of us will mourn, and we deeply sympathise with his family.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: May I, in three sentences, add to the eloquent tributes which have been paid by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies)? Oliver Stanley was my only colleague on this side of the House in the representation of the City of Bristol, and he was a personal friend of many years' standing. I always found him both a wise counsellor and a good comrade. In him, Bristol has lost a distinguished Member


of Parliament, this House a brilliant debater; and the nation a high-minded statesman and a very fine gentleman.

BILL PRESENTED

COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL

"to establish a Courts-Martial Appeal Court and provide for appeals thereto from courts-martial and certain naval disciplinary courts; to make provision with respect to the office of Judge Advocate General; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Shinwell; supported by Mr. Strachey. Mr. Henderson, the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate and Mr. Callaghan; read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Restoration of Pre-War Trade Practices Bill and the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT

Mrs. Castle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the words in paragraphs (1) and (4) of section two and paragraph (2) of section three of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which restrict the operation of those paragraphs in the case of a woman or girl who is a common prostitute or of known immoral character or whose usual place of abode is a brothel.
May I begin by explaining what the Bill does not seek to do? It does not seek either to condone or to persecute prostitution as such. It is concerned with the procurer, with the man or woman who exploits the vice of others, and therefore has an interest in its encouragement. I think everyone will recognise that prostitution is a social evil, and that it is, in the words of the United Nations Convention of last year,
Incompatible with the dignity and worth of the human person.
We would all agree with the attitude taken by successive British Governments,

when this problem of the traffic in women has been discussed at international conferences over the past 40 years, that we cannot make people good by Act of Parliament, and that the right way of trying to modify this evil is by social progress and education, on the one hand, and by striking at the commercial traffic in prostitution, on the other.
This is the point of view that I, as a Member of the British delegation to the United Nations, put to the Social Committee at the General Assembly when we discussed this problem only last year, and I believe that my Bill is in entire conformity with that approach. As our law stands at present, our main attack on procuration is through the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, an Act
to make further provisions for the protection of women and girls.
It is with only three subsections of that Act that I am concerned with in this Bill. I am concerned with them because they specifically exclude from that protection the common prostitute and the girl of known immoral character. The effect of this exclusion in these three cases is as follows.
Section 2 (1) of the 1885 Act is designed to give special protection to the girl or woman under 21 years of age by making it a criminal offence to procure her to have sexual intercourse with a third party. But, as the law stands at present, the procurer gets away scot-free if the girl he procures is a prostitute or a girl of known immoral character. Yet surely she is the very person who is in most need of protection from being induced or procured to serve the trade. She may be—and often is—a girl who has not yet fully committed herself to a life of prostitution. Yet the man who makes it his business to draw her deliberately into the trade, commits no offence according to the law.
Section 2 (4) of the Act of 1885 makes it a criminal offence to induce a girl or woman of full age to leave her usual place of abode and inhabit a brothel in this country or abroad. Again, no offence is committed if the woman's usual place of abode is a brothel, even when she is induced to inhabit a brothel overseas. This, again, is the sort of case where protection is most needed, because, as the League of Nations committee of experts who inquired into this problem in 1927


have pointed out, it is on the prostitute class that the international traffic in women thrives.
As the committee also point out in their report, once a prostitute has been induced to go abroad she will find it very difficult to escape, however horrible the conditions under which she may have to ply her trade, or however much she may wish to change her way of life. Perhaps I may be permitted to read one sentence from the report.
No one knows better than the souteneur that once he gets a girl into a foreign country he can bring influence to bear on her to do his will which he could not use in her native land where she has possibly friends and some knowledge of the law and customs.
Finally, under Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1885, it is an offence to procure a woman or girl to have sexual intercourse by false pretences or by false representations. Here, again, no offence is committed if the girl is already a prostitute or of known immoral character. It is surely intolerable that any woman or girl, because she follows a certain way of life, should be excluded from the protection given to other women, even though that way of life, prostitution, is not illegal under our law.
My Bill seeks to remove these exceptions from the Act of 1885, and to do nothing more than that. I hope that in the comparatively short time available to me I have managed to make this rather complicated matter clear. Thanks to the provisions of the Act, and to the vigilance of the police, it is rare for respectable women or girls to become the victims of the procurer today. If we want to curb his power, we must strike at the point where his exploitation is most effective, and that is among the prostitutes and the

semi-professionals: To do that, we must amend the 1885 Act. That is the practical case for the Bill.
But an important point of principle is also involved. I believe—and so do a large number of religious and social organisations of all creeds and shades of thought that have been working on this problem for a great many years—that it is wrong to withhold the protection of the law from any citizen on grounds of his or her moral character. This Bill will bring our law into line with modern thought on this problem; indeed, it is many decades overdue. What I am seeking to do is to include all citizens in the protection given by the law against those who would organise vice for their own ends. It is on these enemies of society, the exploiters of prostitutes, that I hope the House will have no mercy, and that to this end it will give my Bill unanimous endorsement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Castle, Mrs. Rees, Mrs. Hill, Mr. Mellish, Mr. W. T. Williams, Brigadier Prior-Palmer and Mr. Bowen.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL

"to repeal the words in paragraphs (1) and (4) of section two and paragraph (2) of section three of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, which restrict the operation of those paragraphs in the case of a woman or girl who is a common prostitute or of known immoral character or whose usual place of abode is a brothel" presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 23rd January, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am not sure how far it is appropriate that I should use this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), upon the Bill which she has just presented. I am sorry that I cannot emulate her eloquence and much less emulate the brevity which she brought to the discharge of her duties.
The House will not be surprised if I say that I consider the opportunity of moving the Second Reading of this Bill a considerable pleasure. Such an operation is not always so agreeable, but in this case the genesis of this legislative infant is thoroughly respectable, and if the period of gestation has been prolonged, it has been, at any rate, without complication. I am certain that, although appropriate objections may be offered here and there, and while, no doubt, we shall all have the benefit of expert advice, there is a fair company of benevolent godfathers ready to receive this legislative infant. I do not anticipate that we shall be substantially divided, because I think that it has already been conceded that this Bill is essentially designed to preserve and improve an asset which is not only valuable to Scotland, but is an asset which is, in many ways, typically Scottish.
The Scottish salmon fisheries are an extremely valuable economic asset. It is estimated that last year they produced some 1,800 tons of fish valued at just over £1 million. [An HON. MEMBER: "Private enterprise."] My hon. Friend says "private enterprise," and some of it is very distinctly private in its enterprise, but I make no allowance for that in my calculations. We have here an extremely valuable asset and a supply of high quality food. Perhaps even more than that, apart from the value of the fish caught, salmon and trout angling is ancillary to our tourist, hotel and catering industry in Scotland. Therefore, I

argue—and I do not anticipate any opposition upon this point—that we must properly exert ourselves to safeguard a very considerable source of employment, direct and indirect.
The value of this asset is much wider than the legal ownership and the rights of angling. There is little doubt that the savage and extensive commercial poaching with which the industry has been afflicted in recent years places these assets and this industry in jeopardy. I need not strain the patience of the House with details of how systematic and damaging the practices of these commercial poachers have been. Gangs of men, using indefensible methods, have done great harm to our stocks of fish, and if these stocks had continued to be ravaged in the fashion with which we are now familiar, eventually the tourist industry, basic at least to all our northern counties, would have been sadly impaired.
In 1948, my distinguished right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), to whom I am most grateful for assistance in preparing various stages of this Bill, set up a committee under Sheriff R. H. Maconochie. It is from this report of that committee that this Bill proceeds, and although, as will have been noted, we have varied here and there from their report, I know that I would be expressing the feelings of all sides of this House if I recorded our indebtedness to the committee and to its chairman, Sheriff Maconochie.
The committee said:
From the evidence we have obtained it is abundantly clear that poaching and illegal fishing operations carried out by gangs from a great distance are now conducted in many parts of the country with almost complete disregard of the law and on such a scale as to menace the stocks of fish.
In detail, as I have already said, the provisions of the Bill vary in some respects from the specific proposals made by the committee, but there is only one aspect in which the Bill substantially differs. The committee recommended the licensing of all people dealing in salmon and trout and the keeping by dealers, catering establishments and cold storage plants of detailed records of all their transactions. I must confess to the House—and I expect that this was a general experience—that this recommendation attracted me considerably. It was quite plain that if we could cut out


the black market for illegally obtained salmon our task would be greatly facilitated, and I must also say that it is my opinion that the buyer of black market salmon is no less guilty of conduct indefensible and harmful to Scotland than the commercial poacher.
However, our laborious examination showed that to adopt these proposals would place upon shopkeepers, hotel keepers, restaurant proprietors, the operators of canteens and of cold storage plant, as well as upon the licensing authorities, a burden of administration and record keeping disproportionate to the benefits which we could hope to gain from such a procedure. We have therefore, following the main lines of the committee's recommendations, concentrated on making the other machinery for the enforcement of the law as efficient and as extensive as possible. I believe that the stiff penalties which the courts may impose and the additional powers conferred upon the police and upon other authorised officers will be sufficient to deter the gangster poacher.
I imagine that it will be convenient first to deal with the general scheme of the Bill before I go on to examine the Clauses or main parts of the Clauses in some detail. The first four Clauses should of course, be taken as the kernel of the Bill. They set out the four main categories into which it is proposed illegal fishing for salmon or for trout should fall. Clause 1 deals with people who fish illegally by familiar and, let me say, defensible means. I mean by that the traditional poacher, if I may so describe him. I shall deal with him in a moment.

Sir William Darling: The decent poacher.

Mr. McNeil: I agree, the decent poacher. Perhaps we would not describe ourselves as honest poachers, but we might say we were traditional and decent poachers when we engaged in the entertainment alluded to in Clause 1.
Clause 2 deals with people who fish for salmon in inland waters otherwise than by rod or line or by net and coble, and with the person who fishes for trout otherwise—but only otherwise—than by rod and line. Then Clause 3 addresses itself to those who poach in gangs. Finally, the use of explosives, poisons,

electrical devices are dealt with in Clause 4. The remaining provisions of Part I are, pretty broadly, consequential or ancillary.
Then Part II of the Bill is concerned with the machinery of enforcement, and it will be found that Clause 10 defines the powers of water bailiffs while Clauses 11 and 12 deal with the powers of search and of arrest.
Part III of the Bill I hope the House will find interesting. Part of it—Clause 13—does not arise from the Maconochie Report, and indeed I should confess—if "confess" is the appropriate word—that I am, personally, mainly responsible for that part. It provides for the extension of the weekly close time for the taking of salmon, by other methods than by rod and line. I want to stress that, because, surprisingly, I have seen letters in the Press suggesting that we are being asked to extend that close time, and to cut out fishing by rod and line. That is not so. That is not dealt with at all. It is a 12-hour extension against the taking of salmon by methods other than by rod and line.
Part III also provides that parcels of salmon or trout, sent by rail, post or carrier, must be clearly marked. Part IV is concerned with penalties; and finally, Part V includes the brief miscellaneous and formal Clauses which are usual in a Bill of this kind.
Now let me look at the Clauses in a little more detail. The House will see that Clause 1 makes it an offence to fish for salmon without legal right or without written permission from the person possessing such a right. I did not think it appropriate, and my legal colleagues agreed with me, to make it an offence to fish illegally for trout. I am prepared to agree, if anyone presses me, that the division in logic is not perceptible. I would urge, on the other hand, that there has been in our fine country, a traditional reluctance to make fishing for trout without permission an offence, and that we design to continue; but, of course, it will remain as at present a breach of the civil law, which can be dealt with by interdict if and when the proprietor thinks this necessary or appropriate.
I am very tempted here to digress and to commend the various excellent angling associations which, up and down the country, have made it possible for us to


have good fishing. These associations are as interested as we are in the protection and improvement of legal fishing, but whatever hopes I might entertain of at some time coming back to the House, or of someone else coming back to the House, to deal with and to improve upon that matter, are, I suppose, scarcely relevant to this Bill. The maximum fine which can be imposed for fishing without legal right is increased from £5 to £10.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Shame.

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend says "Shame." I would be prepared to listen to argument upon that subject. I must confess that I felt that I had some obligation to look closely upon the advice offered by the Maconochie Committee, but if any hon. Member thinks that this is a point upon which they would quarrel, they will not find us too obstinate on the Committee stage. However, in fairness to my legal colleagues, I should point out that this is in no sense a mandatory fine. It is subject to defining the limits within which courts should function.
I hope I may be permitted to say that, if we seem to demonstrate a tenderness toward the ordinary poacher—I might almost say the traditional poacher—I hope that hon. and right hon. Members may respect our tenderness. On the other hand, it will be seen that we have attempted to deal with the substantial menace of the commercial poacher by very heavy penalties indeed.

Mr. Rankin: Before my right hon. Friend leaves Clause 1, would he make one thing perfectly clear? It refers to the individual who fishes for or takes salmon. Are we to understand that "salmon" there refers specifically to salmon, or does it include sea trout? I put the point because the sea trout is generally regarded as being in the salmon class.

Mr. McNeil: If my hon. Friend will turn to the definition on page 10 he will find, as one might expect, that sea trout have to be included in the category visualised by the word "salmon." Without tying myself to scientific terms, the exclusion here refers to the common trout, the brown trout, as against those other fish which fulfil their normal cycle by

moving to and from the sea waters. I hope I have met my hon. Friend's point. I have dealt with Clause 1 of the Bill.
Clause 2 is concerned with people who fish for salmon in any inland water. The first subsection of the Clause makes it an offence to fish for salmon in inland waters except by rod and line subject to the proviso that it preserves existing rights. Then the second subsection in this Clause makes it an offence to fish for trout except by rod and line, subject to the limited existing rights of proprietors to net only where they are agreed in a pond or loch.
The penalties for offences under this Clause will be found in Clause 16. The maximum penalty is £20 for a first offence and £50 or three months for second or subsequent offences. There is, however, a further stage, namely, conviction on indictment. It will be for the Lord Advocate to decide whether or not to proceed on indictment. This will enable the court to impose a fine of £100 or two years imprisonment or both. That is a very substantial proposed change in the law upon this subject.
Further, under Clause 17, fish and implements may be forfeited, and again subject to conviction on indictment, there may also be—the House will remember the advice offered to us by the committee on this subject—a forfeiture of any vehicle or boat used in the commission of the offence. I think it will probably prove to be the case that this deterrent is a very strong one indeed. We all have known of cases where we suspect a lorry or car was being used, and that the offence could not have been committed without the use of some such vehicle. I need not say that I hope the powers will be vigorously enforced, because the public conscience in our country has been quite substantially disturbed by the scale of these offences. The House knows that one of the wretched practices that has grown up has been the use of explosives to catch fish.

Mr. Jack Jones: A Mills bomb, for instance.

Mr. McNeil: I think my hon. Friend is pulling my leg, but anxious as I am to retain his respect I should say that a Mills bomb was a dreadful weapon to use for this action.

Mr. Jack Jones: I can assure my right hon. Friend that I am not pulling his leg.


I said, "A Mills bomb, for instance," and I know, as a matter of fact, that they have been responsible for killing more fish in places which I know, than they have been of killing the enemy.

Mr. McNeil: We are all aware of that, and the explanation of my hon. Friend makes it plain that he, like the rest of us, deplores the use of a bomb or any other explosive for this purpose.
We have thought it essential under Clause 6 to make it an offence for an unauthorised person to take dead salmon or trout from any waters. The method is that the explosive is thrown into the water, the people who placed it there go off and hide, the explosive goes off, they come back and take away the dead fish. Further, we have made it an offence to be found in possession of fish instruments, explosives or poisons in circumstances which give reasonable ground for concluding that an offence under Clauses 1 to 4 has been committed. That is provided for under Clause 7. It will be seen in subsection (3) that we have taken the unusual course of making it lawful to convict the person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.

Mr. McGovern: Shame.

Mr. McNeil: I can quite understand my hon. Friend's worry on this subject. I hope the House will note that none of us has committed himself to this device without a great deal of heart searching. Also, we can look upon this departure from common practice as some kind of sympathy for our dilemma. It will be understood that in such isolated parts of the country as those in which we have seen these large scale offences committed, it is not easy to ensure that a constable or water bailiff is accompanied. Indeed, it is scarcely practicable. The House will also bear in mind that though we have made this provision, it still remains the scrupulous duty of the courts, which I have no doubt they will discharge, to make sure that the evidence, direct or circumstantial, is firm enough and adequate enough to justify a conviction.
It might be convenient here to look at the powers of search with which we have endowed the water bailiffs and the constables, and about which I know the House will zealously concern itself. We

propose in Clause 10 to re-enact the existing powers of water bailiffs relating to their own districts and to districts adjacent to their own. A constable, bailiff or anyone authorised by the Secretary of State is empowered to exercise similar powers, but without this territorial restriction. If the law is to be enforced, it is plainly necessary that authorised officers should have adequate powers to collect the relevant evidence. The powers which we proposed in Clause 11 of the Bill are more restricted than those recommended by the Maconochie Report. I almost apologise for that in some ways, but we felt it our duty that we could not go the whole distance with the Maconochie Report upon these points, because we felt we had an obligation to protect the rights of the ordinary citizen as well as an obligation to make enforcement and conviction a practicality.
It will be seen that at Clause 11 we have provided the, normal method by which an authorised officer can obtain from a sheriff or a justice of the peace, on reasonable submission, a warrant to search. However, it will be easily understood that there may perhaps even frequently be such situations that there would not be time to apply for a warrant and so at subsections (3) and (4) of this Clause we have provided that a constable or a water bailiff may stop and search a vehicle provided that there is reasonable ground to believe that an offence has been committed and that evidence of the serious offence is to be found in the vehicle.
There are certain restrictions which I hope the House will note, particularly relating to the power of the water bailiff. We have restricted his power in three ways. First, he cannot search a person. Secondly, the vehicle which he has power to search must not be on a highway but on private land. Thirdly, the search can only take place within these limitations upon his own district or upon an adjacent district. Again, I plead for consideration from the House upon this slight departure and I submit that if, on the Committee stage, objection is offered to this point it will not be offered without some practicable and effective alternative being put forward. Without effective powers in relation to the collection of evidence I must tell the House that I greatly fear that the proposed Act will not be enforceable.

Sir W. Darling: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this point may I ask him whether the water bailiff may be a honorary officer? I take it that a water bailiff may be either male or female.

Mr. McNeil: On the first question, I would only say offhand that since the bailiff is appointed by the district board his relationship to the board is a matter for the board. Secondly, the appointment certainly could be either male or female. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that in another Clause, in relation to search of women, we have laid it down that the search can only take place by a female officer.
If I may set aside the first Clause of Part III for a second or two—I will come back to it—let me try to discuss the remainder of the Bill briefly. Clause 14 provides that salmon or trout consigned by post, rail or carrier, must be clearly marked as "salmon" or "trout." The remaining provision of the Bill, except Clauses 16 and 17 with which I have already dealt, are minor and procedural in character. Clause 15 removes the limit of the assessment which can be imposed by district boards. Clause 18 provides for the disposal of fish which have been seized. Clauses 19 and 20 deal with the position of the Esk and the Tweed in relation to the Bill, and Clauses 21 to 24 and the Schedules are completely formal in character.
I have no doubt, turning to the remaining and undealt-with Clauses, that I shall have some opposition to Clause 13. I am certain I shall from some of my hon. Friends as well as from some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Clause provides that the close time for the taking of salmon, except by rod and line, which presently stands at 36 hours per week, shall be extended to 48 hours per week. I should say in passing that this is not at all a revolutionary conception. I would tell hon. Gentlemen who represent Scottish seats and who are very jealous for, as well as very familiar with, the procedure in relation to salmon, that this proposal has been the general law in England since 1923.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Surely it is a fact that boards can fix their own close time?

Mr. McNeil: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think I have been

unfair. It is true that exception can be made by district boards. I repeat that this has been the general practice in England since 1923.
I am attracted by the proposed extension because I do not doubt that we have not yet appreciated to the full the effects of the ravages which have been made upon our fishing, and particularly upon our salmon fishing. As the House knows, there is, roughly speaking, about a five-year period in the cycle of the salmon's life. Therefore, there will be a five years' period to wait under this Bill, and it will be some two or three years before we can see what the actual reduction in our fish population is, due to these methods. I therefore seek for authorisation to extend the close time by 12 more hours weekly, to permit a few more fish to get up our rivers each week. When the fish are really running it should make a considerable difference to the eventual fish population of our rivers and lochs.
I would now say, although I fear I am straining the patience of the House already, that every scientific interest which I have consulted upon this subject, as well as the Scottish Tourist Board, have agreed with this proposal. There is not one scientific objection to it. I fully concede that there are a limited number of people—I am not saying an insignificant number—engaged in the commercial fishing of salmon, for whom this provision will mean immediately some degree of hardship, but I shall try to show why it is only an immediate hardship. I want to argue that when we have, after some five years, seen the benefits of this additional closing time, not only angling but even these commercial operations, will benefit from some of the provisions.
I would greatly like to have given to the House a more comprehensive Bill for the conservation and improvement of our Scottish fishing stock. I should like to have been able to make provision for the co-ordination and extension of research in relation to our fishing stock.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before my right hon. Friend leaves Clause 13—

Mr. McNeil: I am coming back to it. Perhaps I may be permitted this digression. While I am not in a position to do what I have spoken of, although the need


exists, I do not want the House to believe for a second that a fair amount of research has not been undertaken in relation with this matter. The House is aware by report of the work which has been done by the Brown Trout Research Laboratory at Pitlochry. I look forward with some relish to Mr. Tom Johnston and his colleagues being able to dispose eventually of substantial fishing in the great lochs and dams of the Hydro-Electric Board. Here is a man who, for public purposes, has developed a great public undertaking. I want to say this trivial and purely minor thing. Mr. Tom Johnston has addressed himself to the use by a responsible public of angling in these lochs and dams.
I should also like to have spoken a little about the research in relation to salmon which is being conducted by private proprietors and also inside the Scottish Office by the Home Department. There are among anglers great disputes about the habits of salmon. Almost all Scotsmen, including myself, think that we know the last word upon this mystery, but, unfortunately, the facts are not too well substantiated. We have made attempts and are making attempts to throw more light on the subject.
In 1939 we started on the River Forss in Caithness to tag outgoing and incoming salmon so that we might know more about their habits of return, a little more about their feeding habits and a great deal more about their spawning habits. For two years that went on fairly successfully, but, unfortunately, there was an outbreak of disease among the fish and the proprietors concluded—wrongly, I think—that it was due to the handling and tagging of the fish. I see that an hon. Member opposite who is an expert in this matter, is permitting himself a slightly knowing smile, but I do not believe that the disease was attributable to that process.

Mr. McGovern: My right hon. Friend is very touchy.

Mr. McNeil: My hon. Friend may not think that this is important, but he must believe me that it is important to the most humble angler in our country, including some of the very fine chaps who no doubt come from his own constituency.

Mr. McGovern: I said that my right hon. Friend is getting very touchy if an hon. Member cannot even smile without an attack being made upon him.

Mr. McNeil: That was not my intention. I apologise. What I meant was that an hon. Gentleman opposite was permitting himself the kind of smile which seems to say that my theory was wrong. Experts about salmon, trout and flies form a very exclusive but a very extensive club.
I hope that we may be able to go back to that kind of research. We are now looking for a river suitable for this kind of work. What I really wanted to underline was that one piece of research of a less speculative kind has been undertaken by certain associations of private owners. None is more remarkable than that by the association on the River Dee in Aberdeenshire. They did not permit themselves the more speculative methods of importing foreign salmon ova or of developing hatcheries. They concentrated their energy and money upon the simple method of buying off nets on the upper river. There was great resentment and opposition to that initially, but these people have been proved right. Now the operations of the commercial organisations are giving a bigger total of fish than all the nets previously taken.
I hope that my hon. Friends who are afraid of the Clause will be patient and will accept an undertaking that this can be reviewed at a later date because on the evidence available we are entitled to conclude that the extension of 12 hours per week will eventually benefit everyone concerned, the tourist industry, the angler and in quite a short period—a little more than five years, perhaps—the commercial salmon fisher himself. I hope that it will be agreed that the Bill, substantially as it stands, should benefit an important industry and afford increased pleasure to a great number of people.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he will be ready to meet the associations, who feel most anxious about Clause 13 and from whom the chief opposition may come? Perhaps he might be able to persuade them.

Mr. McNeil: My recollection is that I have already undertaken to meet some groups of these associations, but I must insist that while I shall do my utmost in


that direction I shall depend upon the co-operation of public spirited people in this matter.

Lord Malcolm Douglas - Hamilton: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down I should like to put one point to him. He mentioned the interesting figure of £1 million as the value of the salmon extracted from the Scottish rivers and coastal waters in a year. Can he say how much of that represents commercial fisheries and what that represents in employment?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Many of these questions are really Committee points. We ought to proceed.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart: Mr. James Stuart (Moray and Nairn) rose

Mr. McGovern: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stuart: I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland would agree with me that we have heard enough from the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) already.

Mr. McGovern: I was only giving the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) a welcome.

Mr. Stuart: The Secretary of State has dealt very fairly with us in introducing the Bill. He has given a very fair statement of the case for it. I was very glad that he dealt with Clause 13 at some length and in a very full and fair manner. I will come to that again later. I want first to say that we on this side of the House are grateful to the Government for introducing the Bill and we wish it a successful passage. There will, no doubt, be points which must be dealt with in Committee, but I hope that the Government will be fortunate enough to obtain an unopposed Second Reading for the Bill today.
I would add to what the Secretary of State has said by expressing the thanks of this side of the House to Sheriff Maconochie and his Committee for the very valuable and useful Report which they have brought forward and upon which a large portion of the Bill is based. The Report enabled the Government to seize this bull by the horns and to handle this problem in an effectual manner. I was about to say that most parliamentary

bulls have more than two horns, which makes them awkward animals to deal with, but perhaps I should have referred to the antlers of stags, because they have more than two points. However, we are grateful to Sheriff Maconochie and his Committee. They have done a good job of work.
The Secretary of State referred to the omission of a Clause dealing with the licensing of dealers. That is dealt with in paragraph 70 of the Report. The Report gave great weight to this, saying:
We recommend the introduction of licences … as we regard these to be essential if the trade in poached fish is to be kept in check.
I will not go further into that at this stage. No doubt some hon. Members will wish to refer to it during the Committee stage. It will be easy to deal with, because the Report sets out the terms of the suggested Clause. In view of the remarks of the Secretary of State about this omission, I will not pursue it further now.
Part I of the Bill seems to be more or less satisfactory and will receive the support of most of us, but I am not so happy about the powers of seizure and of detention and of the right to prosecute. I can think of no one more suitable to clear up any doubts in our mind than the Lord Advocate, and I hope he will be able to tell us that this Bill will not whittle down the powers of river boards and proprietors and others under the old 1868 Act. Since that date there has been no Scottish Act affecting salmon, but there has been the English Act of 1923, the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act. Section 34 of that Act deals with the powers of fishery board officers and enumerates the people who have powers under the Act as follows:

"(a) any officer of a fishery board acting within the fishery district;
(b) any officer of a market authority acting within the area of the jurisdiction of that authority;
(c) any officer appointed for the purpose by the Minister;
(d) any officer appointed in writing by the Fishmongers company;
(e) any officer of police."

At this stage I ought to declare a personal interest in the Fishmongers Company. I am a member of the Court and at this moment I have the honour to be Prime Warden of the Company. I shall


not weary the House with a long story of this Company, going back for approximately 700 years, as it might take up a certain amount of time to do so. I shall deal only with the one point of prosecutions in connection with poaching.
For the last 50 years the Company has been working at this job and, where there are not fishery boards, trying to see that the law is carried out. In the last 20 to 25 years the Company has carried through some 200 prosecutions, in only five of which has it failed to secure convictions. That is a valuable help to the Secretary of State in carrying out what he wants to do. So I hope he does not want to whittle down these powers. If there is any doubt, it would be simple to incorporate in this Bill a Section from the 1923 Act. I am sure the fishery boards would welcome that, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider this point.
The Fishmongers Company does this work entirely at its own expense. We hope that the fines which will be collected after successful convictions will not go entirely to the Treasury, because fishery boards require the products of those fines just as much as other people appointed by the Secretary of State, in order to carry through the prosecutions. My sole object in advocating this is that the best possible job should be made of the work, and that prosecutions should be carried out efficiently. In scattered parts of the country the constable has a lot of other things to do, in addition to seeing that the provisions of this Measure are carried out efficiently, and to procurators-fiscal it is surely just another case among many cases which they have to handle in their ordinary work.
On the question of prosecutions, I am advised from a so-called expert source that this Bill, by not providing that any person may bring an offender to justice, prevents people such as river boards and the Fishmongers Company from bringing proceedings under it. In addition it provides that no person other than a water bailiff, constable or officer appointed by the Secretary of State shall exercise the powers of seizure or detention. While I know that everybody cannot be given powers of seizure and detention, nevertheless, I hope responsible persons will be empowered under this Bill to carry out the work which they have, been doing in the past.
Clause 13 has received a certain amount of attention from the Secretary of State. Taking the long view, five years or so, there is no doubt that this longer weekly close time will assist the net fishermen and the commercial undertakings. It is, I admit, taking a longish view but, after all, that is not unheard of in our affairs. The only cases I can think of where it would not be welcomed are where leases are short, with only five or six years to run, and where some loss to those operating the nets will be feared. However, I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider such cases if they exist.
The Secretary of State did not refer to the hours which he has put into the Bill. I agree that it follows the 1923 Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, that is.
the period between the hour of six on Saturday morning and the hour of six on the following Monday morning.
In this connection may I quote briefly a letter I have received from the Moray Firth Salmon Fisheries Company, Ltd.:
Further, it is impossible, anyhow in the early part of the season, to have the nets in the sea (as distinct from those in the estuary) 'slapped' by midnight when it is dark. It takes from two to six hours to 'slap' the nets on a sea station and it would be quite impossible to do this in the dark without grave risk to the fishermen. Water bailiffs on one river have already protested that they would feel unwilling to try to enforce such a 'slap,' as it would mean forcing the men to risk their lives.… It would therefore be necessary to 'slap' before dusk on the Friday night, in order to keep the new law.
The answer to that, which is worthy of consideration, is that an alteration in the hour might be considered, because in February and March at six in the morning they would be working in the dark.

Mr. McNeil: indicated assent.

Mr. Stuart: I am glad that the Secretary of State has indicated that he will be prepared to consider such an alteration.
I think I have covered the main points with which I wished to deal. I do not want to take up a lot of time because others will wish to speak, but the Government, I must say in fairness, are to be congratulated on introducing the Bill. I hope that on the Committee stage we shall manage to deal without undue controversy with any outstanding points, and I hope that the Bill will pass through its various stages without undue delay.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I have to disclose a double interest in the Bill, since I had the responsibility of parent of the Committee under Sheriff Maconochie which was set up to examine the problem of the illegal taking or killing of salmon and trout. I should like to pay my tribute to the way in which that Committee worked and to the manner in which they presented their Report. My other interest is that my constituency happens to bridge one of the finest salmon rivers in the country. For that reason, therefore, my constituents have a considerable personal interest, about which I hope to say something later.
The Bill might be said to have originated not in the Government or by any wish of the Government; the real originators of the Bill were those who have used violent and dangerous methods to destroy the fish in our rivers. The unanimity with which the House is evidently going to accept the purpose of the Bill shows quite clearly that those who have resorted to violent means have raised in the public mind such a resentment at the destruction of the fish in our rivers that the Bill will be universally welcomed.
This is only one of many Bills which the Government have introduced to safeguard food resources. Salmon is an important and desirable food. It is assumed by some to be a food only of the rich. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That applause of hon. Members only shows how little some of them know of the Highlands. The people in the Highlands know the taste of salmon. Indeed, in the old days, they used to stipulate when they were accepting service that they would be fed with salmon on so many days of the week. Therefore, whether the fishing of salmon is legal or illegal, the Highlanders know its taste extremely well.
The getting of food is mostly the result of arduous toil. Fishing has the advantage that it provides food by pleasurable sport as well as by work. Fishing has remained one of our primitive sports, and we should not resent the fact that people are still able to derive pleasure from it. But the very existence of the whole of this river fishing industry has been threatened by dangerous and violent

methods of poaching—by the use of explosives, poisons and other mechanical devices, causing wholesale destruction of fish, many of which are wasted.
It was felt by the Committee which was set up to deal with this menace that prompt action should be taken to deal with it, but I and some of my constituents were rather surprised, on reading their Report, to find that in some way or other the Forth Estuary had been dragged in by the hair of its head, as it were in the Report of the Committee, which was set up to deal with a
serious menace to the food stocks of Scotland.
By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that this practice, which has been going on for 60 or 70 years, is a serious menace to the fish stocks of the Forth in the sense of the original complaint.
The general impression of these fishermen who have been pursuing their normal occupation of fishing for salmon in the Forth is that advantage is being taken of this Bill to deal with the gang fishermen, to deal also with a dispute which has existed on the Forth for 70 years and has not been settled despite a decision of the House of Lords regarding the illegality of that fishing. That decision overturned a decision in the Scottish Court of Session. Their Scottish Lordships went very carefully into the facts of how this fishing was conducted. In describing the mode of fishing in this part of the Forth, Lord Mure, for example, said:
The facts are simple and the parties have had the good sense to adjust a minute in which the whole of the material facts are admitted.
The area extends for about four miles above and below Kincardine pier. My information is that the area above Kincardine pier does not matter as much as the four miles below Kincardine bridge.
It was agreed by the parties that this was an imporant matter because, it was said in the courts, if this mode of fishing was declared to be illegal, the right of salmon fishing in this part of the river would be of little value.
It is also made a matter of distinct agreement that the portion of the river is not suitable for being fished 'by means of net and coble fishing pursued in the usual manner'.


That is a quotation from the case which was admitted by all the parties in the dispute. The case at that time rested solely on the question that the net, being a fixed engine, was illegal. Curiously enough, the Scottish judges, many of whom must have been familiar with the area and conditions of the estuary, took took the view that the fishing conducted on this part of the Forth was but a variation of net and coble. In the judgment in the Hay v. Perth Magistrates case, the judge said that the case
distinctly negatives the contention that net and coble fishing can only be practised in one way.
I should like to put on record Lord Deas' observations on the position. He regarded the procedure on this part of the Forth as
a modification of fishing by net and coble,
and went on to say that
the modification is rendered necessary by the state of the locality in which the fishing is practised. It is admitted that no fish can be caught in this part of the river by sweeping it with a net in the ordinary manner. They are caught by using an engine of the kind described in this case I think that the fact that fish could not be otherwise caught in this part of the river is very important, because it is not the policy of the Legislature, in these various restraining laws to permit the fish to escape—and apparently if this mode of fishing were not adopted in this part of the river, the fish would not be caught there at all.
I must in fairness point out that Lord Shand took the view that while he agreed with the general decision of his colleagues, he did not think that the question whether it was a convenient or useful method of fishing affected its legality. I think that we would probably agree with him.
Lord Mure further said:
This mode of fishing, therefore, is plainly carried on by a net and a coble.
He pointed out that it was not maintained by the complainers that the fishing was done by a fixed engine, but that it violated the rules in the original House of Lords decision. Far from being a fixed engine, the net may actually be moved down for a distance of three miles during the time of fishing. Lord Shand said:
The net used is not fixed, stented, settled or made permanent in the river and, as has been already observed, the fact that it is attached to the boat is of no consequence, because the hand of man could be substituted at once.

In the House of Lords, in the original case on which this decision depended, Lord Chancellor Westbury was equally clear in repudiating the idea that the net and coble was a stereotyped mode of fishing, incapable of alteration or improvement. I would like hon. Members to note these of his remarks:
The direct effect of the judgment in Hay's case was to allow a variation in the ordinary method of working the net adapted to the peculiarities of certain channels in the Tay.
As I have said, the House of Lords differed from the Scottish court. Their view of the law as it stands has declared the Forth practice to be illegal.
If the judge's appreciation of the case is that it is impossible to catch fish in that part of the river otherwise than by the method which is being used, then for 50 years on that stretch of the Forth fishermen have been compelled either to fish illegally, or to go out of business. These fishermen have been fishing all that time but the State has not taken any serious steps to put a stop to fishing which is presumed might be illegal. This Bill is now renewing the law and reviewing the law and, although the House of Lords said that was the law as it stood then, it is for this House to take into consideration whether the law, as previously stated by the Lords, is to be the law in the future.
These fishermen felt that the Committee had included the Forth in their Report without a full examination of the circumstances. I know that the learned sheriff who was the chairman of the Committee lives on the shore of the Forth itself and is probably well acquainted with it. I have no doubt he knows a great deal about the position there, but the point is that these fishermen, like most of us—like myself who set up the Committee—thought the Committee was examining into violent and dangerous methods of fishing.
We had no idea, and these fishermen had no idea, that their fishing on the Forth was to be brought into this category, or that they would be brought into the Report. The Committee, I am informed, invited evidence and no evidence was given by any of those who had practised fishing in that part of the Forth evidently because they thought it did not concern them. This recommendation has been made, they feel, without them having


been heard to make clear the case which 50 years ago was so complicated that the Scottish courts took one view and the House of Lords another.
I submit that what we have to do as a law-making assembly is to give the people for whom we are making the laws a feeling that they are being treated fairly. These people are decent fishermen; they are not gangsters at all. They are as decent as the fishermen in Newhaven and the Morayshire ports. They have earned their living as their fathers did before them and they feel something is being done to them without their having had an opportunity of even saying the word in favour of their own case. Therefore, I did feel very strongly, when they came to me, that they ought to have an opportunity at least of being heard and having the circumstances investigated.
One other difficulty arose. I recognised these men had a vested interest in their fishing and therefore I could not altogether take their ex-parte view as necessarily being unbiased. I have therefore spent a good deal of time examining the case and, as I have shown from the quotations I have made, the Lords of the Court of Session and the House of Lords had great difficulty themselves in deciding what was legal and what was not legal in this particular fishing method on that part of the Forth.
One can understand that if their Lordships found it difficult to decide when the mode of fishing was legal and when it was not legal it will be very difficult for these men when they go on the Forth to be sure they are not doing something for which they might be charged and convicted as a crime, but which they did not know they had committed. These fishermen have no intention or desire of damaging the fishing stocks. They support the Bill in its purpose to preserve the fishing stocks of this country. But as a subject of this country surely a fisherman must have a feeling that he gets a fair hearing and that the facts he puts before a committee or the House of Commons are properly investigated and that he should not be faced with a law he cannot be sure to observe.
One other difficulty which I naturally realise is that the law, once made, is inflexible in the minds of people mainly

concerned with the law. We are concerned with making policy in this House of Commons, and very often we have to vary what the House of Lords have decided was the law in the past. We have an opportunity in this Bill of reviewing this question, which has disturbed this part of the country for 70 years, and of putting it right by dealing with it fairly and giving people a hearing for their case. Whatever the judgment is, these people will have to accept it.
They support the Bill in its main purpose, the prevention of the deterioration or destruction of the fishing grounds, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is correct when he says that these men's existence depends on not destroying the source of their livelihood. They have a vested interest in supporting the main purpose of the Bill. If they find that the fishing they have carried on for generations is suddenly transformed to a crime for which they can be liable to a fine and imprisonment they are put into a state of apprehension and fear and it is wrong that citizens should not know what the law is.
It is true that because the Lords overruled the opinion of the Scottish Court of Session their practice may be illegal, but it has never, they claim, been investigated on the spot in recent times, and in 50 years no previous Government have regarded it as so likely to cause damage to fish stocks that they took any really serious steps to put a stop to it. In spite of the fact that it was accepted by the Court of Session that normally net and Coble fishing was impracticable on that part of the Forth, fishing has been winked at by use and wont. It might be argued that their fishing at present is illegal, but by this Bill we can decide what will be legal in future.

Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that one can only take proceedings by interdict and therefore no one would go to the expense of doing so? At the same time, drift netting has been regarded as illegal?

Mr. Woodburn: That is a debatable point. The hon. Member comes from the Tay and the Tay fishermen—

Mr. Snadden: No.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member's area is in the region of the Tay and, as


he knows very well, the decision gives the Tay fishermen a certain amount of latitude in the variation of the net and coble method which fits the peculiar circumstances of the Tay. All I am suggesting is that these men on the Forth feel that the usual strict net and coble method for other reasons is incapable of being used in this part of the Forth, and that there should be a variation to suit their case as well. I cannot think that the first result of a Bill to restrain fishing gangs will be to stop the mass destruction of the fish going up the river in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), but I fear its first effects will be on these relatively harmless fishermen who ply their trade on the Forth.
While I agree that it is convenient to have the law in good black and white divisions so that it is all clear to people who administer the law, nevertheless it may do injustice. Nature is not uniform as the law likes to be. I was thinking of an analogy today. There are two methods of bombing in warfare. The British method is that of pin-pointing the military objective and hitting it, but the other method is of scattering bombs all over the place on the chance that one may hit the objective, but it also usually hits a lot of people who are not the objective. My view is that this Bill is taking the latter form and scattering "bombs" which will hit people who were not involved in the original complaint at all. That is something neither the Government, myself, nor anyone would like.
I therefore ask the Secretary of State to see whether there is not some way of ensuring the protection of the fishing grounds without endangering the livelihood of the fisherman whose savings are sunk in these fishings. Merely saying that it has been technically declared illegal by the House of Lords makes no difference to the human and moral side of the question. If these men are not preventing the fish going up the river, and not doing anything detrimental to the stock of fish, they are not doing anything more than the rod and line men further up the river. There is no reason why the State should appear to take sides in favour of the rod and line men of the Forth as against the fishermen who are earning their livelihood in the way I have described. The purpose of the State in the Bill is to preserve the stocks, and in that aim I am entirely with

them, and I would not support the fishermen by advocating anything that would be contrary to that aim.
I realise the danger of what I am suggesting. If we open the meshes of the net of this Bill not only the fishermen of the Forth will get through, but some criminals as well, but I should like to see a little consideration given to the aspect about which I am speaking. On good authority, and by that I mean modern authority, not authority of 70 years ago—authority independent of all the interested parties because I recognise the difficulty of accepting ex parte statements—I am quite sure that the estuary of the Forth in this region is quite exceptional among all the rivers of Scotland. There is about four miles of it, with the mud going out to about 400 yards—some parts at times above water. All sorts of objects have come down the river and are projecting from the mud, old trees, old boats; I am told that there is even an aeroplane there.
Any suggestion that fishermen could trail nets would be ridiculous. Moreover, there is no place where the fishermen can walk, nor is there a suitable bank. The only question is whether they can work their boats there in such a way as to be within the law. I suggest that in respect of that particular part of the Forth the law should make itself as adaptable as is the special case on the Tay. Surely these men can look to Parliament to make the law sufficiently flexible so that its incidence and effect on citizens can be accepted as reasonable and fair?
It is not easy for a back bench Member to draft an Amendment to achieve that and at the same time safeguard the main purpose of the Government. The Lord Advocate, who I understand is to reply to the debate, combines a very warm heart with a very cool brain. I want to see both linked in some way. I know what his legal argument would be in his capacity as a lawyer, but I know that as a human being he would not wish to do an injustice to anyone. His difficulty in this matter is that I might be asking him to be a bad lawyer and a good human being. It takes great courage to appear a bad lawyer if one is a good lawyer; and I have to depend on the warm sympathy of the Lord Advocate and of the Secretary of State to persuade them to look on this case which I am making from a more human point of view than that of strict legality.
I have a great respect for the House of Lords—perhaps not so great as has the Lord Advocate—as a legal assembly. In this case, however, I am prepared to take the opinion of the Scottish Court of Session even against that of the House of Lords. There is the chance that the Scottish Court of Session may sometimes be right and that the House of Lords may be wrong. At all events, I am prepared to accept the view of the Court of Session in this case. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to appreciate first of all the human side of the case I am putting, and I am quite sure that his cool brain will then easily devise the means of meeting this peculiar difficulty.
The purpose of this Bill is to safeguard fish stocks and the prevention of violent destruction is only one aspect of the problem. The House should realise in connection with the extra close time which is proposed that while that will contribute to the improvement of the fish stocks a close time would not be necessary if we tackled the pollution of rivers. I am glad to see that there is a committee on this matter of dealing with pollution now sitting, and I hope it will report soon.

Mr. McNeil: It has reported.

Mr. Woodburn: Pollution is destroying the fish life in some of our great rivers, and is at the same time robbing our soil of the very valuable natural fertiliser. The Forth—and this is what makes the fishermen exasperated, and I sympathise with them—which is one of the finest salmon rivers in Scotland is, according to the magazine of the British Field Sports Society, being ruined not by these few fishermen but
almost entirely due to the foully polluted state of its estuary.
Factories, breweries and collieries pour in refuse. Stirling empties all its sewage into the river untreated. I am told by the scientists that sewage removes the oxygen from the water, and that no life is possible in a river when there is no oxygen.
The Forth is saved only by its spates and tides. It is only when there are spates and tides that the fish can get through. At one period during last summer fish were dying in the water for lack of oxygen. Once the wind came

those that survived were able to surge up the river. The Secretary of State has mentioned that we get about 1,800 tons of salmon per year from the Scottish rivers. If we could get rid of pollution and carry through the measures he suggested, we could double the salmon catch—up to 2,000 tons a year—and in that way add to the income of the population in many parts of Scotland, providing ourselves at the same time with a considerable amount of food.
I remember seeing some years ago a film of the Canadian experiment in breeding salmon. It was marvellous. One saw the salmon being hatched out and being put into the rivers when they reached a certain degree of maturity. Then one was shown the salmon five, six or seven years later, surging up the river in their thousands, and being caught and sent to the canneries. Scotland has a great number of rivers which are denuded of life today. If pollution could be prevented that state of affairs would be ended and the fish would be safeguarded, which is the primary purpose of the Bill.
While we are carrying out that aim, I suggest that we should also at least see that the case of people who have not been doing any great harm to the fish, and who are quite prepared to observe any rules which the Secretary of State may prescribe, is looked into between now and the Committee stage to see whether some arrangement cannot be reached by which the Forth District Board might be allowed to take charge of this part of the Forth, which is a quite exceptional part of the river.
It is nothing like the beautiful river which flows into the constituency of the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), a river which changes its mouth every two or three years and where one can see the men sweeping in the salmon in beautiful clear water. That is not a river with an estuary four miles wide, such as the Forth has opposite Grangemouth. It is a matter of opinion as to whether the estuary should finish at Rosyth or Grangemouth. It used to finish at Grangemouth but it is now deemed to finish at Rosyth. I hope that some consideration will be given to the case of these men for whom I have been pleading. However, I welcome the general purpose of this Bill, and shall give it every support.

5.48 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: I do not wish to follow the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on the legal side of the question, but I wish for a moment to call the attention of the House to the terrible difficulties which the salmon have in existing at all. We are all interested in keeping the salmon alive, including those who, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, wish to continue catching salmon provided they are within the law. To enable them to do that, we have to ensure that the stock of fish still exists, and I am certain that it is in danger of being considerably reduced.
I should say that I have an interest in a certain part of a river in Scotland, and I am, therefore, interested in the survival of the salmon. I wish for a moment to paint a picture of the situation in the river—not in the estuary, because it is in the river that I think a dangerous situation is arising. There we are suffering from the gangster-poachers, against whom Clause 3 is directed. There is regular organised poaching up and down the rivers in the north of Scotland. This does terrible damage to the stock of fish. The state is almost one of war. Short of firearms, everything has been done to prevent these people from breaking the law.
We had an example only last season of a young ex-commando officer whom the poachers tried to drown, because he swam out to try to pull in one of their nets. Unfortunately, he got one of his buttons entangled in the net, and directly the poachers saw that he was in trouble they dragged on the net to try to pull him under water. He had to struggle out of his trousers in order to swim free of the net. The story goes that when he landed he was "run in" for not being properly dressed while bathing—but that is not part of this story. There was another occasion when a bailiff was seized by poachers and thrown into the river because he objected to their poaching. He was doing his job, and he ought to have had from the law a certain amount of protection.
My own man has had stones thrown at him when he shouted at these fellows to tell them that they were breaking the law. I have arranged a system of rockets. When sent up, they give warning to the police. The nearest policeman is stationed 18

miles away. When the rockets go up, certain steps are taken. There is only one road which runs by the river and we hope that both ends of that road will be closed and that the poacher will be discouraged in future by certain sanctions which the magistrates may put on him.
There is a great necessity for this Bill. The salmon is pursued from cradle to grave by a host of enemies, and man is by no means the most important of them. The poor little beggar has trouble before he is hatched out of the egg. While he is still in the shingle bank where he is put by his mother, he is pursued by every sort of insect, gull and wading bird. He stays in the egg for roughly 90 to 114 days. During that time the level of the water in the river varies tremendously. At one time a flood may come along and wash away down the stream the little shingle bank in which he is. At another time there may be dry weather when the level of the water sinks considerably, until the shingle bank is only just under the water. Then he is at the mercy of the wading birds and the various crawling insects which come out in the sun. The mortality rate at that stage is very high.
Having got out of the egg, he is then attacked by a thing called a big water beetle, who is, for some reason, a gentleman who has acquired an inordinate taste for salmon fry and who will eat them on every possible occasion. The salmon fry are not mobile at this stage and they are easy prey. There again, there is a tremendous mortality rate. And so it goes on. Those which survive live in the river from a year to a year and a half, and at the end of that time they assume a silver coat and make their way towards the sea. With that silver coat they are tremendously conspicuous and can be seen by everybody while they are still in the river. They are pursued by flocks of gulls and various diving and other birds all the way down the river. Again, the mortality rate is high.
But perhaps at this stage the biggest marauder of the lot is the spawned salmon—what we call the kelt—who is trying to feed up and regain that strength and health which it had before spawning. That fish will eat an enormous number of these silver-coated salmon. From the litter, the nest or whatever it may be called, of one fish, the number that get


down to the sea is extremely small. Fortunately there have been a lot of fish spawning and, hence a lot of fish laying eggs, so that the stock survives.
The young salmon spends from one to three years in the sea. For a great part of that time he is subject to depredations from otters, dolphins and all sorts of sea-fish of the larger type. When he survives that, he turns round and gets back to the mouth of his river. In some way or other, in nine cases out of ten he is brought back to the same river from which he went. How that happens we do not know. After coming near shore, if he survives the attacks of seals, otters and other fish, he comes into contact for the second time with the river water and, for the first time, with nets. This is his first battle with the nets.
First, there is a watchman on the shore who watches out to see when a shoal of salmon approaches. As soon as he sees them, he gives warning, and out goes the sweep-net which goes round the estuary to sweep in as many of that shoal of salmon as possible. That happens not only in the spring but later in the summer. The year before last we had a dry summer and I do not believe that there was one single grilse—that is, a fish coming back to spawn for the first time…which got up the river in which I am interested. That is the fish which one really wants above all others. There was no water in the river when they came into the estuary. The sweep-nets were brought out and practically every fish was swept up. There was no record of any grilse being caught in the river in June that year. That is fatal for the stock of fish with which that river keeps up its annual supply.
We must pay a great deal of attention to the various forms of danger to which the salmon is liable in the river. Those that get past the nets at the mouth of the river are fished for by fishermen, and they do not take a heavy toll. The number caught by fishermen is unimportant, provided that the fish are not pursued by the net. The Minister mentioned that on the Dee the whole of the up-river netting had been taken away. That means that, within a few years, there will be an enormous difference in the stock of fish in the river. He was right when he said that all the authorities and scientific people who study this question agree that the extension of

the week-end by 12 hours, to allow 48 hours free of nets, would make all the difference in the world to the stock of salmon in the rivers. We know that is true because each Monday or Tuesday we see the number of fish which come through after the nets are taken off. If the period could be extended, the number would be considerably increased.
One of the methods which we have to tackle the gangster poachers is by watching for their vehicles. They cannot get anywhere without vehicles. Nobody worries about the individual who goes down and hooks a fish for his Sunday lunch. It is the organised gangs of poachers who are doing the damage to the rivers, and these people must have a vehicle for the job. If we can, by means of this Bill, control the vehicle, it will make all the difference in the world.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the definition of vehicle in Clause 22, and to suggest that it should contain the word "tractor." We have experience of the farm tractor being used with the trailer, taking the place of the motor car, in order to get the gear to the required spot. At present, I think the Clause refers only to a vehicle, and a tractor does not come within that definition. It is worth while asking the Minister to take note of this matter, although it is perhaps a Committee point. It is essential that we should be able to have some control over these vehicles, because that is one of the chief sanctions which this Bill proposes.
There is another point concerning which care will have to be exercised in regard to the definition Clause, and that is the actual definition of salmon. It should be so designed as to include salmon of all ages, because it is just as important to preserve the younger fish as it is to preserve the full-grown salmon.
I think this is where we touch on the question of the poisoning of salmon, which is such a dastardly method of destroying the fish, because it not only destroys the full-grown salmon but two other generations as well—the six-months' old fish and the 12–18 months' old fish. It also destroys all the insect life on which the trout feed. This method does an unlimited amount of damage, and it is most important that it should be stopped. One of the factors which makes it so easy to catch fish by this method is the fact that this poison


can be bought from the local ironmonger by anybody who has a rat or mole on his farm and without having to sign for poison or anything of that kind. It is therefore very largely used, and if the Minister could find some means by which its use could be prevented—and no doubt the Minister of Agriculture would have to be brought in on this—it would greatly improve the Bill.
After all, the salmon suffers from many enemies. It is the job of the riparian owners to deal with the vermin, and, as for the netting at the mouth of the river, that is admirably done now, and the fish are netted very sensibly. I have been talking to a netting owner recently, and he told me that he was entirely in favour of the extension of 12 hours at the weekend. He said that he was quite convinced that in the long run he will get more fish that way than he is doing at present. I know that there are two points of view on that question, but I think that some of the net fishermen will also support the Minister, as I am sure we do. The rod-and-line people take little toll in numbers, and are not affected very much, but this superimposition of poaching by gangs of people with nets, poison or bombs really is the limit and will finish the stock of salmon in our rivers.
Therefore, I beg the Minister to be quite firm about the conditions laid down in the Bill. It is a good Bill, which I feel will do a great deal to help to solve this problem and preserve this fish, which, after all, is the king of river fish, on a level with the monarch of the glen and the golden eagle, in that all are part of the life of the Highlands and must be maintained.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Macdonald: I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that we have listened to a fascinating speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles). I feel that there can be very few people in this country who know as much about the salmon and its ways as the hon. and gallant Member, and therefore I must feel very ill-informed, as an enthusiastic but very unsuccessful novice at this sport, in following such a knowledgeable Member.
I have in my constituency on the Tweed a large number of very keen

anglers, both lawful and unlawful. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is the hon. Member speaking for both?"] Yes, for both. For the unlawful ones I have a certain sympathy, because my own forebears are reputed to have been poachers and cattle thieves. I think they did the job fairly well, and I therefore feel that I can understand the poacher who goes out and gets an odd fish now and then. Most of these men are hard-working chaps during the week, working in mills, offices and elsewhere, and I feel that they do no harm, or very little harm, to the river and the fishing by reason of the odd fish they take, and that they do very little damage to the river frontages.
We must, however, have a penalty for poaching, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider that Clause of the Bill and not increase the penalty which we now inflict upon these individual poachers. I do not wish to encourage them, but I hope nevertheless that the penalty will not be increased. I welcome the Clause of the Bill dealing with the penalties to be inflicted upon organised poachers. I feel that they are a horrible menace to our rivers and to a sport which every section of the community can enjoy. I hope the maximum penalty will be inflicted upon these people every time they are caught, until this menace is stamped out.
I welcome also the 48-hour closing for net and coble fishers, for I want to see as many fish coming up our rivers as possible. River fishing does great good to the community as a whole. The net fishers say that the rivers will become overcrowded and that disease will kill a good many fish if there is a close period of 48-hours per week for net and coble fishing. I am not, like the last speaker, an expert on this matter, but I would say let us take the risk, because I would like to see our rivers fully stocked. The salmon and trout are very good dollar earners for this country, and I want to see them coming up the rivers and earning these dollars, as well as enabling working men to enjoy their sport, which will be reduced the more organised and intensive becomes the net and coble fishing at the mouth of the rivers.
This Bill bears the title "Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Protection Bill," but it is not a protection Bill for the salmon and freshwater fishing. It cannot be a


protection Bill until such time as the Secretary of State has the courage to include in a Bill of this kind definite means for getting rid of pollution in our rivers. This pollution is an even greater menace than the organised poaching.

Mr. McNeil: As this is the second reference to this point, may I be permitted to say that I am in complete agreement, because I think I have indicated that, as fast as is reasonable, we will present the report from the Committee which has just reported on pollution in Scottish rivers. I am in complete agreement with what was said by my right hon. Friend and also by the hon. Gentleman opposite on this subject.

Mr. Macdonald: I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman says that we may look forward to this present Bill being only a part of the protection that we are going to give to our river fish, because many of the angling associations feel, quite rightly, that this Bill does nothing towards dealing with this bigger menace.
I wish to say a word on behalf of the angling associations. I think that most hon. Members will agree that they are doing a wonderful job, and I want to see them strengthened as much as possible. I should like to feel that the bulk of the members of a river board were representative of the recognised angling associations in its particular area. I do not feel that the associations will be sufficiently strong until we give them representation of that kind.
Before I finish, I wish to turn to one other point not connected with my constituency at all, but which is connected with the appeal made by the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) on behalf of some of the net fishermen in a section of the River Forth near Kincardine Bridge. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to give special consideration to allowing, with whatever restrictions he considers necessary, these net fishermen to continue their work. For the most part, they are men who have paid very large sums for the sections of the river from which they fish. They are honest, hard working, decent fishermen who will be ruined if the Bill goes through in its present form. I ask that they be given some further consideration between now and the Committee stage to see whether

an exception cannot be made in their specific case.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Robertson: I intervene in this debate for the purpose of making one short point with regard to Clause 20, which deals with the Tweed fisheries. For some considerable time, an anomalous situation has existed with regard to the 1868 Act. That Act contains a by-law extending the mouth of the Tweed along the northern seaboard right up the Berwickshire coast as far as the East Lothian coastline. This is a ridiculous situation. The Commissioners of the River Tweed have power and authority over the whole of the Berwickshire coastline. It is a matter which has created considerable dissatisfaction among the people of Berwickshire, and I am, rather disappointed that the opportunity was not taken in this Bill to amend that Act or to make this new Bill more in keeping with what would be a much better situation than at present exists.
I think that the Bill as a whole is a good Bill if it can avoid those excursions which emanate from the large towns into the countryside, and which deprive the rivers of Scotland, by inhuman and unlawful means, of the fish which swim up and down them. If the morality of the country people had been applied to the fishing of the rivers of Scotland, this Bill would not have been necessary. I understand that my right hon. Friend is as anxious as we are to protect the rivers of Scotland against desperadoes who make excursions into the countryside from the larger towns, and, so far as the Bill aims at achieving that, it will. I think, be welcomed on all sides.
But there are one or two points in it at which we shall have to look very closely in seeking to achieve that worthy aim of protecting the rivers and fish of Scotland against organised gangs. We must see that we do not impose hardship on the people who earn their living by salmon fishing. To that extent, we shall have to look very closely at the Bill during the Committee stage, and perhaps we shall have some proposals to offer for its amendment. I should, however, like my right hon. Friend to look at the position regarding the extension of the mouth


of the River Tweed north of the Berwickshire coastline. That is a considerable hardship, and an anomaly which I think ought to be got rid of by some action taken under this Bill.

Lord Dunglass: The hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that the salmon come down the coast at that point. Who, therefore, suffers the hardship which he mentions?

Mr. Robertson: The proposal contained in this Bill relating to the River Tweed will obviously apply to the whole coastline, because the mouth of the river is regarded as an estuary extending right north to the seaboard of Berwickshire. I think that is an anomaly which ought to be put right.

6.18 p.m.

Brigadier Thorp: I do not normally intervene in a Scottish debate, but today "the blue bonnets are over the Border." This Bill proposes to take powers affecting our English policemen up to 20 or 30 miles south of the Border. It is also going to have an effect on the English net fisheries on the River Tweed, which is the major point. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. J. J. Robertson) represents, I believe, about six nettings on the River Tweed, and I represent between 20 and 25. As I say, this is a Scottish Bill which is going to take action on English ground and English water. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Scottish Sea."] It used to be called the "German Ocean," but never the "Scottish Sea."
However, the real point is that I agree most sincerely with the general principle of the Bill regarding poaching in the rivers. I think it is perhaps a little weak-kneed for anyone to get up and speak about "honest poachers" and "decent men who break the law." While we all realise that men like that are not doing any great harm to the salmon, they are, nevertheless, breaking the law, and they must be dealt with as poachers.
Clause 13, which is the main part of the Bill, strikes me as a bit of sharp practice, for, as far as I know—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there has been no prior consultation at all with any of the net fishers. I believe that to be perfectly true. Those who argue in favour

of closing down net fishing for 12 hours longer at the weekend put forward the point that in five or six years' time the number of salmon will be greatly increased. I am an Englishman and I understand from the Secretary of State that Scottish people know everything about salmon.

Mr. McNeil: I did not say "everything."

Brigadier Thorp: Be that as it may, I am not prepared to agree that we know everything about salmon. We have no proof that that will be the case in five or six years' time, though I do not say there will not be an increase in the number of salmon going up the river. If there is, the cause may be better spawning and less poaching and not the fact that netting has been closed earlier. At the mouth of the Tweed, where the autumn run has declined tremendously since before the war, we believe that a lot more fish would go up the river but for the fact that it gets so dirty in its lower reaches that they cannot run up.
The reason for that has been not only the increasing pollution higher up the river, but also the drainage on the hills. That drainage is causing the heavy rain water to go down the river quickly in floods, with the result that for periods in June and July the river is absolutely stinking because there is not the water there to clear it. We believe that greatly affects the autumn run of fish. Whether we believe it right or wrong, it is only fair that when we consider a Clause like Clause 13, extending the weekly close time for the fishing, we should consider in detail how it is going to affect certain people.
I maintain that, certainly in tidal water, the present 36 hours closing often means that the river is closed for 42 hours because of the tides. Therefore, if the close period is increased by 12 hours, it may mean that the river may be closed for up to 54 or 56 hours. It has also to be remembered that there will be a loss in the takings of small salmon companies on the Tweed of something like 15 per cent. if the river is closed to net fishing for 12 hours longer at the weekends. That can mean the difference between a profit and a loss in the accounts of these small companies. At the same time, between 180 and 200 fishermen engaged in English


netting on the Tweed are affected and their weekly wages may be reduced by up to 5s.
I understand that in other parts of Scotland certain fishermen are paid by the week, but we on the Tweed have a basic wage and also fishing time money. If the fishing time is cut down, it not only cuts down the number of fish taken but cuts the wages. It seems very hard that in these days of high cost of living these fishermen should have their wages cut by up to 5s. a week and that small shareholders in fishing companies may receive no dividends at all. We are told to take the long view and that five or six years hence things will be better. But there are a great number of these fishermen who, perhaps selfishly, will say, "We are not so young as we were and if we wait five or six years for this great improvement that is supposed to come, we shall be too old to handle the nets."
There is another important point. The Secretary of State will remember that before the war we used to import a great quantity of deep frozen Canadian salmon into this country. Its price was something like 2s. a lb. Do we consider that in five years' time conditions in this country with regard to dollars will be such that we cannot import that salmon again? If we do not agree that that will be so, we must agree that the salmon will come in from Canada at perhaps something like 3s. 6d. a pound and that will mean that the price of our salmon in the Tweed and in Scottish rivers will drop tremendously from its present price. The men are therefore going to give up a large sum of money for five or six years in respect of the period in which they will not be able to take salmon, whereas in the future they may have to accept a much lower price.
Lastly, I should like to draw attention to the tremendous anomaly which exists in the case of English net-fishing on the River Tweed. I am afraid that it cannot be made the subject of an Amendment to this Bill, but the point should be considered. It is that when net-fishing in Scotland was derated in 1928, at the same time as land was derated, net-fishing in England was not derated. Therefore, we have the position at present that where a net comes out on to the bank of the Tweed in Berwickshire in the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick and East

Lothian over exactly the same water as a net which is landed on my side of the Tweed, his men pay no rates at all and my men pay full rates. If Clause 13 of the Bill is approved, that will be a great hardship. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will support me if I bring in a Private Members Bill to remove that anomaly.
I support this Bill, but until something is done about Clause 13, I shall have to go on arguing, even though I cannot get into the Scottish Grand Committee to speak on the Committee stage.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I listened very carefully to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I am sorry, but my throat is bad and I cannot speak any louder. I paid particular attention to what the Secretary of State said in endeavouring to make his case for this Bill. I noticed that he stressed the northern counties. I have every sympathy with them, and if they require assistance we in South Scotland will always be willing to extend our help.
I advise the Minister not to place too much credence upon the Maconochie Report because that committee exceeded its terms of reference. I regretted hearing my right hon. Friend condone black marketing. But when he invited a certain amount of sympathy, I must tell him at once that we in Peebles and Midlothian will extend that sympathy to him if he will take the Tweed from Tweedsmuir to Thornilee out of this Bill. Only two rivers are specified in the Bill, the Esk and the Tweed. The River Esk is exempted from the Bill and, as we are in the same district, we claim that the same conditions should apply to us as apply in the case of the River Esk.

Lord Dunglass: When the hon. Gentleman says "we," I take it that he is not talking in any other capacity than as a representative of Peebles? He does not means the river board?

Mr. Pryde: I think I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking for Midlothian and Peebles, which is not an inconsiderable part of Scotland. We believe that the same provisions do not apply to Midlothian and Peebles as apply to the north of Scotland. During the debate on the Gracious Speech, I was indebted to an


Opposition Member for a certain reference he made to the legislation which is now before us, or what passes for legislation. I call it a conspiracy against the freedom of the individual. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of 31st October this year, we find these words:
I think it merits the prize for being the most reactionary legislation possible in the interest of the most reactionary elements in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 100.]

Mr. McNeil: I hope I am not misunderstanding my hon. Friend. I do not like interrupting him, but since the intention of the Bill is to proceed against people who have been evading the law by poaching and gangster methods, am I to understand that, as my hon. Friend objects to the Bill, he is defending the methods of these people?

Mr. Pryde: No. If my right hon. Friend will be patient, I shall deal with the question of poaching. I want to deal with poaching, because it has not been dealt with so far, and I shall require some time in which to do it. Had this Bill been promoted in more peaceful times, I think I can say without the slightest fear of contradiction, that there would have been more said about it up and down the country. The reason why it is slipping through so quietly is that the country is today faced with an external crisis. This Bill is very dangerous. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) for the sentiments which I have just quoted.
On 31st October, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), said:
I control one and a half miles of the River Tweed and I have not a fishing rod of my own. I never fish because the river is so thoroughly poached by private enterprisers, most of whom are constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1950; Vol. 480. c. 79.]
Both statements, like the rumour of Mark Twain's death, were grossly exaggerated. In the first instance, no one controls the banks of the River Tweed. Only three years ago when the Tweed burst its banks, I had to appeal to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), who was then Secretary of State for Scotland, to come to our assistance. To his everlasting credit, he rushed the full power and weight of the Department of Agriculture into the Tweed Valley and saved the situation when the Tweed was

meandering over the whole of south Scotland.

Sir W. Darling: Is it not the case that a public subscription was raised in order to compensate those unfortunate persons who suffered from that occurrence?

Mr. Pryde: Afterwards, but at the time no one could control the banks of the Tweed, and the Member for Midlothian and Peebles had to do the necessary work. The then Secretary of State for Scotland, like a true representative of the Labour Government, looked after the interests of the people.
In the second instance I think that the statement of the hon. Member for Galloway was quite correct—that this would be legislation in the interests of the most reactionary elements in Scotland. What I find in this Bill is simply a conspiracy to endeavour to usurp the inalienable right of the native Peeblean to take a fish from the river as the state of his larder so dictates, just as his forefathers have done before him for over 2,000 years. Mr. Chambers, in his gazetteer for Scotland, said that the people of the Tweed Valley have a closer kinship with the ancient Pictish tribes than anyone else in Scotland, because invaders could come and invaders could go, invasion could ebb and invasion could flow, but the native Peeblean always returned to his enchanted valley.
Today we find that the people of Peebles-shire are to be subjected to this nefarious piece of legislation. In Clause 1 we find that we have to get written permission to do something which we have always done simply by saying to the laird, "Can I have a day's fishing?" to which the answer was invariably "Certainly, go and fish." Then it mentions the rod and line. I will deal with the rod and line as I will deal with Clause 7, because herein lies the key to the whole Bill. The only people who are going to remain undisturbed under this Bill are the landed proprietors, the most reactionary elements in the community. Some of them have no fishing rods, and I do not know how they are going to get salmon unless they do it in the good old-fashioned way by stripping off and going into the river with a naked light and leister.
In Clause 3 two or more persons acting together can be indicted under this


Measure. In Scotland today we have a great interest in the number of people who go caravaning and motoring. If they arrive at the salmon stream at half-past six on a Saturday night and they desire something for tea, they will be penalized if they fish. And such penalties!—on indictment, £500. What will a labourer in one of the Peebles mills think if he has to pay a fine of £500, and discovers that it is to be deducted out of his first week's pay? It will be a case for my friend Mr. George Buchanan, the Chairman of the National Assistance Board.
Clause 4 deals with explosives, poison and electrical devices. There never was more "hooey" talked in all this world than there is about these things so far as they apply to the south of Scotland. I am not alluding to the north of Scotland; I am referring to the Tweed. If two cartridges of gelignite were placed in a pool in Peebleshire, immediately the noise would vibrate up and down the valley and in 15 minutes the inspector in Peebles would have mustered his men and no one would escape except by helicopter. Cyanide also comes within this category. If someone used cyanide in a pool in Peebles, who would be able to go into the Tweed at all. After using explosive, is anyone going into a pool where we can hide a double-decker bus to collect salmon? As far as electrical devices are concerned, they do not apply to Peebles because we have not got the current there. Therefore, electrical devices are ruled out. There does not seem to me much ground for including the Tweed within this Measure.
As for gangs, I think the appointment of a horde of water bailiffs will be an insult to our well-organised, able and competent police force. I say without the slightest fear of contradiction that the police force of the Lothians and Peebles will be able to handle any gang that ever comes out of the cities. Clause 6 deals with penalties for the removal of dead fish. I do not know who framed this Bill, but whoever did so, must know absolutely nothing about fishing or angling. Wherever there are fungoid fish, it is the duty of any person to remove them, for otherwise they will pollute the rest of the fish in the river. I think they have been thinking about fish

which are dead by reason of explosives or cyanide, but there are cases in which disease attacks salmon and yet, in such a case, if a man removes a fungoid fish he will be subject to these savage, feudalistic penalties.

Mr. McNeil: Not at all.

Mr. Pryde: That must be cleared up. Clause 7 introduces the word "instrument." Clause 22 does not interpret the word "instrument." Yet, if it is suspected that any person has something on him which can be interpreted or construed to be an instrument—suspected by some form of clairvoyance on the water bailiff's part—that person can be apprehended, searched and, on the evidence of one witness, convicted. Where in all broad Scotland or in Britain, in any other phase of legal life, is a man convicted on the evidence of one witness?
When we turn to fishing by rod and line, we see the looseness and vagueness of the Bill. You would fish a long time on the banks of the River Tweed with rod and line alone before you caught anything but a cold. You have to have something attached to the line. Will a single baited hook be legal? If we fish with two baited hooks, will that be legal? If we fish with a cast of flies, will that be legal? If we fish with the natural minnow, which often carries more than one hook, will that be legal?

Sir W. Darling: Read page 10.

Mr. Pryde: I have read it. If we fish with artificial minnow, will that be legal?. If we fish with the otter by rod and line, will that be legal? If we fish with the witch by rod and line will that be legal? [HON. MEMBERS: "What is that?"] I shall not tell my right hon. Friend what a witch is. He is an impressionable young man and I do not think the Home Secretary would be generous enough to pardon him if he were caught. These things will have to be cleared up. I must press for clarity on those points because the rod and line is the most scientific method of legal fishing in all angling circles.
I think Clause 7 merits the prize, in the words of the hon. Member for Galloway, for it says:
It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.


I do not believe the House will agree to any such legislation. In view of the power which is to be invested in water bailiffs under this Bill, I think that is scandalous.
I do not know what is the opinion of water bailiffs in the minds of some hon. Members, but let me repeat an incident which happened in a certain Sheriff's Court when an old lady was asked what she saw from her room window the previous night. She said, "I saw a young man and a young woman and a water bailiff." Apparently he was not of the genus homo according to the old lady. "What was he doing?" she was asked. "I never knew a water bailiff who was up to any good," was the reply. But he is given power to search anywhere and to search anyone, and he can come from the Tweed to the Lothians, which is adjacent, or can come down into Lanarkshire to the Clyde, which is adjacent, because they rise on the same hillside. These bailiffs are to be invested with powers greater than those of our police. In this Bill the Government are simply demonstrating that the police force in Scotland is not adequately manned.
Clause 13 prevents the industrial worker from indulging in his favourite sport. Every hon. Member knows perfectly well that all sections of industrial workers will in future be working every hour that God gave them. Surely it is not right that we should ask these workers to sacrifice the little sport which they have at the weekend. In my constituency I have some of the finest angling clubs, mostly trout fishermen, to be found in Scotland today.

Mr. McNeil: I tried to deal with this point. There is no extension of the close time against the honest angler whom, I know, my hon. Friend represents so well and with whom I have the greatest sympathy. There is no interference with his normal weekend recreation in any way.

Mr. Pryde: So long as I have the word of my right hon. Friend—

Mr. McNeil: It is in the Bill.

Mr. Pryde: If that is made clear, I am free from any apprehension in regard to the angler, but I hope that will be made plain to the water bailiff and that his powers will also be watched. Clause 14 permits packages to be seized and un-

packed, but it makes no provision for the responsibility of repacking them. Further, there is no provision for compensation to the innocent person.
It is true to say that there are fewer salmon in the Tweed today than there were, say, 50 years ago, and boy and man I have fished the river and its tributaries for that space of time; but that is not due to the depredations of organised gangs. In my opinion—and I am only giving an opinion, although it is based on observations—it is due in the main to pollution. Let us hear what Andrew Lang, one of Scotland's greatest sons, said long long ago:
De'il take the dirty trading loon,
Wad gar the water ca' his wheel,
And drift his dyes and poisons doon,
By fair Tweedside at Ashestiel.
When the question of pollution on the Tweedside is tackled, with the removal of the nets at the mouth of the Tweed, then the Tweed will be restored again to its position as the greatest salmon river in Scotland. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take the Tweed out of the Bill, from Tweedsmuir to Thornielee.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: After listening to that illuminating speech by the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) on the motives and methods of the men of Peeblesshire, I can only say that it is a very good thing that we have this Bill before the House today. For all that, the hon. Member made a gallant defence of the traditional system of Scotland, where a man went down in the calm of the evening, when his day's work was done, to catch a salmon, and I hope that that will continue for many generations to come.
I like the Bill so much that I feel almost obliged to declare my interest, because angling is my favourite recreation. I am an enthusiastic angler and anything which is designed to improve the quality and quantity of the fish in the Scottish rivers and burns has my support. The right hon. Gentleman therefore deserves congratulations, by and large, on what he has done; but, clearly, there are certain points in the Bill which want examination.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) has raised the question of the net fishermen on the Forth. My constituency also is bordered by the Forth, and there are net fishermen


off the coast of East Fife, and I should be interested to know what happens to them. I am not yet briefed on the matter. We have not been given just as much time as we desired to consider the Bill. Nevertheless, there will be time before the Committee stage. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not consult with the industry concerned before introducing the Bill, because I am not yet decided on the matter.
I do not necessarily accept all that I am told by the Tay salmon fishers, who are my constituents. I am open to persuasion. There can be no doubt, however, that strong interests are involved, long-established interests, perfectly honourable interests. They feel that something harmful is being done to them, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take any opportunity open to him to enable those interests to put their case before him, so that he can apprise himself of it and consider whether it is possible at all to meet it. With the principle he has enunciated tonight, I cannot disagree, but it may well be he can amend it a little to meet the case which these men are putting.
That is all I have to say, because many want to speak. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated; but he is also to be warned that, on the Committee stage, all of us who are anglers almost by birth, and who have been anglers for many years, will want to question him most carefully on the Bill.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I dare to intervene in the debate concerning Scottish salmon fishing, not as a Scotsman, but as an ordinary humble angler who, like the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), is anxious to preserve the right of all people to fish, anxious to ensure that there are more fish than there have been in recent years, and to help more people to fish. I am persuaded by an old poacher to think that this Bill is a good Bill. When the Maconochie Report was described to him he said it informed him of a way of catching salmon he had not hitherto known about, and he gave the Report his blessing.
I am all for dealing in no uncertain terms and no uncertain manner with the depredations of the gangs now assembling

not only in Scotland but in all parts of the country, who hope, by their operations, to make profits quickly at the expense of the happy pleasure of ordinary fishermen at the week-ends and during their holidays.
I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite who, in the main, are the owners of the fishing rights, which they gained and have maintained by having deeper purses than the majority of the people who would like to use their preserves, have really a warm corner in their hearts for the ordinary village poacher. I have heard him described as being part of the English and Scottish way of life.
I thought the Secretary of State made rather heavy weather with the Bill tonight, in describing its use for the purposes of earning dollars from Americans coming here. If I know the average American as well as I think I know him he would prefer to pay 10 guineas to one good salmon poacher and watch him do his fishing than pay 10 guineas for the right to fish and waste hours not catching a single one. That is my experience of my American friends. They always blame their failure on other things. The water is too clear or is not fresh enough, or the salmon are not rising, or the gulls and wading birds and poachers are destroying the fish, so that no fish is to be seen let alone caught.
The Bill is a good Bill in essence because it seeks to create and to preserve a greater supply of fish for the needs of the nation in the years ahead. It is what I would call a long-term Bill. It will not do over-night what it seeks to do. I was very interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles) who gave us the history of the salmon parr and reminded me of "Salar the Salmon" and other books on these questions. I know, as a fisherman, that what he said is absolutely correct, and that no fish suffers more hazardous experiences than does his majesty the salmon. The Bill seeks to increase the number of salmon and if it preserves more salmon in our rivers it will have done a wonderful job for posterity.
Fishing gives great pleasure to people, but it does more than that: it gives a man peace of soul and mind that no other recreation can. A man who—as I have done numerous times—spends a day at the week-end on the banks of a river or


the side of a pool fishing, returns to his work in a better and happier frame of mind, and in better physical condition, to get on with his ordinary work.
I believe that the intention of the Bill is good, but there is one point to which, I think, attention should be given, and that is the rather savage penalty of a £10 fine for catching a salmon with rod and line for the first time. I am prepared to give a man who, with rod and line, catches a salmon on his first day's attempt a bounty of £10, because I think that his success would be almost miraculous. I give the Bill my blessing, as one south of the Border and as an angler, because it seeks to do what I think will be an advantage to the country at large and not only to anglers and fishermen in particular.

6.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I have been reminded of a piece of advice given to me when I was a very young Member of this House, namely, "Always try to know something of the subject being discussed." I remembered that as I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Colonel Boles). I realised that here indeed was a master of the subject. His was a fascinating discourse which taught me more of natural history than I have ever learned from any of the school books that I used to treat with respect. I remember that not long ago, when we were debating the subject of fox-hunting, my hon. and gallant Friend gave us a delightful discourse then, full of knowledge of that subject and of the countryside. I felt I ought to pay this tribute to him, because I have learned so much from him and it is not often that one of my age can learn anything.
It is high time that this Bill was introduced. We have had the same penalties for salmon poaching practically since 1868. We tried in 1938 to bring in a Private Member's Bill to rectify some existing anomalies, but, unfortunately—or, perhaps, fortunately now—the war stopped it. Now we have got a much more comprehensive Bill, which deals with far more facets of the problem than the Bill in 1938 attempted to do.
I think that the principle of the Bill is absolutely sound, and I do not think there is any criticism of its details that cannot be met in Committee; and, therefore, any

points that I make are rather in criticism of the principle, and are designed to give help to the right hon. Gentleman in his further consideration of the Bill between now and the Committee stage.
In this otherwise admirable Measure there is rather too little discrimination between two types of poacher. On the one hand there is the man who goes out fishing with his rod and line and pits his skill against a wholesome, healthy, strong fish, and has the joy of victory with the added joy of a good meal for himself and his family at dinner time. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me when I say that I cannot believe that such a man should be fined a maximum penalty of £10, especially in view of the fact that he does practically no damage to the river—at any rate, no damage compared with that done by the "spiv" who is working for gain for a gang, using the most inhumane and revolting methods to achieve his purpose, and on whom I would impose any penalty that could be devised. Apart altogether from the destruction of food, to use poison and electrical devices on the salmon, the most beautiful of fish, is a sin which should receive the utmost punishment.
The other day I was talking to a poaching friend of mine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes, I have many of them, as we all have. Every little angling club has its share of decent, honest poachers, who get great fun out of the sport. Perhaps the word "honest" is a little extravagant in the circumstances. This friend of mine made a very novel suggestion which I should like to pass on to the right hon. Gentleman and which, if adopted, would really make this Bill quite unnecessary. My friend suggested licensing the poachers. He said, "Make a choice of the poachers and give them licences. Then you will see the river cleared of any poacher who has not a licence. Your salmon will be preserved intact, and your unpaid 'policemen' will see that the river is cleared of the real criminals, the people who damage the river and the fish." I ask the Secretary of State to think that over; I admit that it is novel, but there is a certain amount of sense behind it.
My next suggestion has already been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman and rejected. It was, of course, recommended by Sheriff Maconochie, who sug-


gested licensing the salmon sellers. A friend of mine, who is a far better angler than I am wrote to me saying, "Suppose a car full of fish blown out of the river at two o'clock in the morning is driven to Glasgow and sold, and then served up for luncheon at a hotel during the day. Unless the seller of the salmon is licensed, how will you ever trace where those fish were poached—fish which might have been blown out of the river with dynamite, for all you know?" The case against granting a licence to the salmon seller is very weak. After all, a grocer is given an off-licence to sell whisky. Why, therefore, all the difficulty about licensing fishmongers to sell fish?

Mr. McNeil: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is over-simplifying the matter. It is relatively easy to trace where the grocer with an off-licence gets his whisky, but it is not nearly so easy to check where a man gets salmon if he is not asked to register the transaction.

Sir T. Moore: I do not see any great difficulty about that. Let it be registered. The same principle applies to thousands of traders all over the country. If this problem is to be tackled in a big way, so that the job is done properly, the whole conception of what we are attempting to achieve will collapse unless a system of licensing the sellers of salmon is introduced.
Again, why not adopt a different method of prosecution for these offences? I am referring now to the "spiv" and gangster type. Why not adopt the present gaming law methods? As the law stands, and as it will stand under the Bill, the only method of dealing with these people is by a civil action of interdict in the sheriff's court. If the interdict is granted and the offence is repeated criminal proceedings can then be taken. But that is cumbersome and expensive, and it takes a long time. The Secretary of State need not look so perturbed, because I have this information on the advice of a solicitor who handles many poaching cases in my constituency, so the right hon. Gentleman had better consult his legal advisers to see whether or not I am right.

Mr. McNeil: I was not dissenting. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is persuaded, on advice, that under the Bill

only by a civil action by interdict can there be a prosecution, I should be indebted to him if he will explain how that happens, because it is certainly not the intention of the Bill.

Sir T. Moore: I shall not take up time explaining how a prosecution can take place. I am only quoting what was given to me as good and honourable advice. If the gaming law system were adopted, a prosecution could be taken straight away, thus saving the time taken up by this long cumbersome machinery which, apparently, is not rectified by the Bill. I will send the right hon. Gentleman all the information at my disposal, which he will perhaps consider.
I now turn to what has already been mentioned—the many decent angling clubs which are the centre of the sporting community in almost every village and town in Scotland. They do not consider that they are poaching; they do not think they are breaking the law by going out with a rod and line. Very often there is a gentlemen's agreement between the owner of the water and the angler, under which the owner says, "You can fish on Saturday afternoon," or whatever is the man's day off. I return, therefore, to my original plea that either the penalty should not be increased for the rod and line poacher, or else directions should be given to the courts that the maximum penalty should not be used. I welcome the Bill. I think it is a good Bill. I believe that it will work, and that it will be for the best interests of the salmon and of fishing in Scotland.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am sure the House was much amused by the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). It was very amusing to hear a Member of this Honourable House telling us that he based his speech upon what he called the good and honourable advice given to him by his poaching friends.

Sir T. Moore: I said it was given by a lawyer, a member of the hon. and learned Gentleman's own profession.

Mr. Hughes: I think I am right in saying that before that, the hon. and gallant Gentleman based his general argument upon advice and experience as related to him by his poaching friends. He was not ashamed of that, and I do not think


he has any reason to be ashamed of it, because the kind of poacher he referred to is very often a good and honourable man; for many of them we in this House have a great deal of sympathy.
Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I also welcome this Bill, which will serve a good and useful purpose, and will help to bring order in a sphere in which order is very badly needed. I thought it was futile of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) to say that the Secretary of State made heavy weather of this Bill. I do not think he did at all. Though this is a small Bill, it is an important Bill, and I think that my right hon. Friend introduced it with great clarity and persuasiveness, if he will allow me to say so.
There are two matters to which I wish to refer. One is the distinction the Bill makes between two classes of fishermen. On the one hand, there is the decent fisherman, the good citizen who goes out for a day's relaxation, and very often does a little poaching in the course of it. He belongs to the class of people described today by a former Secretary of State for Scotland as legitimate poachers. I will say a word about that class later. The distinction to which I am drawing attention is between that type of fisherman, on the one hand, and, on the other, the gangs who go poaching and marauding for gain; who carry on this nefarious traffic for profit. They are the enemies of the community, of the food supply of the people, of the decent angler and of the fish stocks of the country.
I am glad to see that this Bill imposes upon them penalties of a heavier and different character from those which are imposed upon what I call the decent fishermen, or what the former Secretary of State called the legitimate poacher. I am glad to see that for a first offence these gangsters will suffer a fine not exceeding £50 or imprisonment not exceeding three months and for a second and subsequent offences a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment not exceeding six months. In my submission, those are not sufficient penalties for a class who are undoubtedly enemies of good order and of the community at large. That is the first matter to which I wish to refer. The second arises under Clause 13—the extension of the weekly close time.
As to the distinction between the two classes of fisherman, I am glad to see that the good citizen is not classed as a gangster, but it is obvious that Clause 9 of the Bill will make him a scientist for reasons which I shall give. If such a decent fisherman is a rich man, no doubt he will be able to lease a fishing, but if he is a poor man, what is he to do? Such a fisherman, indeed, I may say, all fishermen are natural philosophers. He seeks health and recreation and to indulge his pastime, but he cannot afford to lease a fishing. What is he to do? Is he to allow himself to be singled out in future as a poacher? No under this Bill he will do nothing of the kind; he will become a scientist because, under Clause 9, all he has to do is to tell the Secretary of State that he is fishing for science or fishing to improve the stocks of fish, and he can get from the Secretary of State a certificate which will enable him to fish, and therefore he will no longer be a poacher. Clause 9 says:
A person shall not be guilty of any contravention of this Part of this Act in respect of any act if he does the act for some scientific purpose, or for the purpose of improving or developing stocks of fish and has obtained the previous permission in writing of the Secretary of State….
If one looks at the definition Clause—Clause 22—one will see that Clause defines many words and phrases. It defines the simple word "boat," the simpler word "dam," the not so simple word "district," and the commonplace word "package," but it does not define the phrase which we find in Clause 9
Some scientific purpose
or the phrase
Improving or developing stocks of fish.
That is a matter which I hope will not be attended to on the Committee stage or any other stage of the Bill, so that it will, when the Bill ultimately passes this House, leave that loophole for the honest and decent fisherman to go off on his day's relaxation without being classed as a gangster or any other type of poacher.
Now, the second matter I want to say a word about is Clause 13. The Secretary of State said that before he introduced the Bill he had consulted all the interests concerned, scientific and otherwise. I wonder whether he consulted the fishermen upon whom Clause 13 will impose a greater hardship.

Mr. McNeil: I think that the hon. and learned Member is unwittingly doing me an injustice. I said "of all the scientific interests I have consulted"—not one.

Mr. Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for that. He consulted with the scientific interests involved but apparently he did not consult the fishermen upon whom this Clause, in my submission, will inflict a serious hardship. It proposes the extension of a weekly close time, and I hope that this Clause will be reconsidered at a later stage because I submit, first, that it is impracticable, particularly in the early part of the fishing season during the dark early mornings; secondly, that it is dangerous to the fishermen, and thirdly, that it imposes undue strain on inspectors of district fishing boards.
My objection to Clause 13 is supported by a letter which I have received from an authoritative source, and which I venture to quote to the House:
Clause 13 has appeared in the Bill all of a sudden, and no one seems to know who is the author of it.… It is proposed that the weekly close time should be extended to six o'clock on Saturday morning, that is to say, that nets must be slapped and leaders removed by that hour. This is completely impracticable, particularly in the early part of the fishing season when it is quite dark at six o'clock in the morning, and when it is obviously impossible to ask men to risk their lives in going to sea before six a.m. in order to carry out this work. A fishing station takes on the average two to three hours to slap entirely even by daylight, which would mean that if six a.m. were the commencement of the weekly close time the crews would have to turn out some hours before that in complete darkness or alternatively slap their nets on Friday afternoon during the hours of daylight. Apart from this, it is the duty of the inspectors of district fishery boards to see that nets are slapped and leaders removed, and as stress of weather has always been held to be a reasonable excuse for not slapping or removing by the appointed hour, it would be quite impracticable for inspectors to check up in the hours of darkness whether the work has been properly carried out or even attempted. It is obvious that whatever period, if any, of extended close time is decided on, it cannot start from six o'clock in the morning.

Mr. McNeil: When that circular letter was first quoted, I indicated that there was a point there which I would be glad to consider in Committee.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you. A convenient way of dealing with this would

be to make the time even longer and bring it to the night before—the Friday night. That may not be all the solution of it, but, at any rate, there is an anomaly there and a problem to be dealt with, and I recommend it for further consideration when this Bill is dealt with at a later stage. It may be suggested that these two are Committee points, but they seem to me to be important points—one, the distinction between the two types of fishermen, and, the other, the extension of the weekly close time—which are matters of principle. They might be fairly considered at a later stage in order to make what is undoubtedly a very good Bill an even better Bill before it passes this House.

7.19 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Let me get straight to the point—because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak—that was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). He raised the question of further extension of the close time, under Clause 13, to Friday night. In fact, that is what may have to happen. At present the close time, because of variation of the tides, and so on, is something like 40 to 42 hours a week and the proposed extension to 48 hours a week will mean, in practice, an average close time of 50 to 52 hours every week. It is a proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman threw out in a light-hearted way.
I have no doubt that many Members know something about the practice of commercial salmon fishing and have spent some part of the Summer Recess on the coast, where they have seen the long nets, strongly staked, going out to sea at right angles to the coast, being almost totally submerged at low water. The salmon swim up the coast in search of the river mouths. They come up against these nets or leaders, which divert them into wing nets, and then into the pouches from which they are collected on the falling tide by men who put to sea in small boats when the daylight comes and the tide is right.
The operators of these commercial salmon fishings operate on long leases, in many cases held from the Crown, leases of nine to 10 years. They employ a great many men in this very ancient


calling. I have more than one commercial firm operating in this way in my constituency, and I will refer to one to show the size of these undertakings. It pays a rental in excess of £12,000 a year, and it employs between 140 and 150 men. It is a firm that is over 100 years old, and many of the people they employ are seasonal workers who work on farms in the autumn and winter. The firm employs between 30 and 40 men throughout the year.
Concerns of this kind have a very real long-term interest in the development and improvement of salmon fishing. They are not people who are here today and gone tomorrow. It is in their interest that the salmon stock should be improved. I recognise that the interests of the commercial net salmon fishing concerns is not identical with the interests of angling proprietors. It has not been proved by any means, as we have already been reminded by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp), that too few fish enter the river mouth. This certainly should be proved before Clause 13 is accepted in its present form. Nevertheless, there is a prima facie conflict of interest between angling proprietors and these commercial firms.
In spite of this divergence, the various interests got together before the war and agreed upon terms that were embodied in the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, that which was presented as a Private Members' Bill in 1938. By the exercise of tact and good will on the part of all concerned, agreement was reached on such highly controversial subjects as liability for the construction and repair of fish passes, the closing of sluices and lades, the annual and weekly close times and the licensing of the sale of salmon. This Bill, unfortunately, was not proceeded with. The laws governing the erection of weirs and fish passes, and so on, is laid down in the 1868 Act. Schedule 9 of the Act preserves the status quo of 1865.
I know of one district fishery board which engaged in litigation, as the Lord Advocate will recall, costing no less than £2,500, in an attempt to remove an obstruction that was protected by the terms of that Act and permit salmon to pass up river, and then lost the case on appeal. The whole process of opening up the rivers and allowing the ascent of salmon

to the spawning ground, the earlier end of angling to avoid the killing off of salmon that are almost ready to spawn and the increased escape of salmon from the sea is complementary, and it ought to be dealt with by agreement in one Measure.
I hope that the Government will introduce legislation on the lines proposed by the Private Members' Bill in 1938. I am quite certain that if they introduced such a Measure, it would have wide support from all parts of the House. Until the Government do this, it would appear to be wrong to deal with one aspect of this long-term problem of reforming the out-of-date legislation of 1868 and leave the other aspects untouched. I do not object, in principle, to the lengthening of the weekly close time, but I object to its inclusion in an emergency Bill of this kind.
The Secretary of State has told us that he consulted scientific interests before inserting this Clause. I regret that he did not consult any of the responsible organisations connected with salmon fishing before it was inserted, as it were, by a sidewind. It is unlikely that he has consulted the men concerned, because it is most objectionable to the men in its present form. These men, with the possible exception of those employed on the Tay fishings, get fish money. They have a substantial interest in the number of fish caught. They have the strongest possible objection to starting at 6 a.m. in the morning, which means, as we have already been told, that they must leave their homes at 3 a.m. in order to launch their boats, clear the pouches and slap the leaders in time.

Mr. Hector Hughes: That is why I suggested beginning the night before.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Let us see what that means. If the men are to start on Friday night, it means the weekly close time will be extended to about 60 hours a week in the early months of the season. It means leaving the whole economy of the business dependent on some 108 fishing hours during the week. A slash of this order, for an industry which provides the market with the bulk of its supplies, will lead inevitably to a reduction of employment, wages and rents.

Lieut.-Colonel Boles: Nonsense.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It will inevitably mean a reduction in wages and hours, and a reduction in bonuses.

Mr. Manuel: But more fish up the river.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have made the most careful inquiries, and I find that there is no shortage of fish entering the river. What is happening is that they are being poisoned by pollution and are not reaching the spawning grounds because of abstraction of water and man-made obstructions. There are other points which I should like to raise, but other hon. Members wish to speak. In conclusion, may I say that I welcome the Bill? It can be greatly improved in Committee, but it would be improved still more if Clause 13 were deleted.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: Like many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, I am always chary of legislation to restrict freedom. I know that the argument submitted tonight is that this legislation is necessary to restrict the gangster, and the salmon poacher. Neither in the Report nor in any of the evidence submitted to the Committee can we get to grips with this problem of the gangster or organised poacher. All we have to work on are the Press reports from parts of the country.
The Government, I know, would not introduce a Measure of this kind unless there were some justification for it. Obviously, if there is some justification, particularly in the north of Scotland, for the introduction of a Measure of this kind, we have to be very careful, because when we introduce legislation to curb certain extravagances or illegal operations, we tend to over-state the position and include people whom we never intended to touch at all. There is a very great danger in this particular case. I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) that the Bill goes beyond what was recommended. Even the Maconochie Committee went beyond the terms of reference which were,
To enquire into the prevalence of the illegal taking or killing of salmon and trout in Scotland by methods which may cause serious damage to fish stocks ,…
All of us recognise that there are methods associated with salmon and trout fishing which may be regarded as illegal, but nobody ever paid great attention to them. When the hon. Member for

Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who originally raised the matter in the House, drew attention to it, he did so because of this organised, commercialised method. I do not think anyone will dispute the Government's right to approach that problem and attempt to deal with it. However, when we come to the Bill, we find that not only will an effort be made to stop this organised gangster work, but that the ordinary person will be dealt with also. Clause 1 reads:
If any person without legal right, or without written permission from a person having such right, fishes for or takes salmon in any waters including any part of the sea within one mile of low water mark, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, and to the forfeiture of any fish illegally taken by him or in his possession at the time of the offence 
That means that anyone, in any part of the country, can be dealt with, apart altogether from the gangsters; and not only that, but it gives the courts the power to increase the fines to the extent of £10. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland never intended the Bill to go to that length.
What are we doing? My candid opinion is that not only are we making an attack on this organised, commercial trade, but we are defending landlords, which is quite unjustified. I know that some hon. Members will argue that these rivers are their rivers, but it is rather far-fetched for a Labour Government to begin to protect the owners of rivers after some of the things about which we have preached in the past. If we are to have some organised way of fishing, particularly for the people using line and rod, it should be done with more cooperation from the people who regard this as their special sport.
The boards should keep in the closest possible touch with the angling associations. I am no authority on fishing, but I have discussed it with people who are interested anglers. If I am any judge, every angling association in the country is disturbed about this Bill. We should ease their minds by making it possible for people who enjoy that sport to have absolute freedom to enjoy it by cooperation or understanding between the angling associations and the boards concerned. Although it is not in the Bill, I think something should be done to


make it obligatory on people who have the power to let a river or part of a river for angling, to let that river, so that the greatest good to the greatest number of anglers is assured. Members of angling associations should be allowed on the boards. In the past we have arranged that those directly concerned with the industry which is to be brought under control should have some association with the people running it, and the same principle should apply here, so that those who are connected with the sport should have some part in the scheme promoted by this Bill.
There has been talk about the "decent poacher." I do not know how anyone could argue that someone is a decent poacher. If he is a poacher, he is committing an offence. If he has committed an offence, there is no way of getting away from it, and he must be punished. If there were a way of making the charges for the sport reasonable—it can be done by the associations in common agreement with the Boards—then the so-called decent poacher whom some hon. Members are anxious to safeguard, and who has been doing this for many years, could be brought into the angling associations and his position be safeguarded. I hope that on the Committee stage we shall take the opportunity to effect such safeguards.
Every person found with a fish that is regarded as having been caught illegally can be punished. It is equally true, as the Secretary of State said, that licences cannot be issued either to the hotels or to the commercial people to cover fish purchases. It would be a very difficult thing to administer. But surely it is possible to introduce something into the Bill under which such commercial undertakings or hotels purchasing the fish illegally would be equally punished. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that they can be punished. There should be. I hope that that point will be looked into. I agree with the Bill in getting down to the organised people, but it should do something to protect the ordinary angler in a better way than is done at the present moment.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Spence: I join with my hon. Friend on this side of the House in supporting the Bill. The Secretary of State has brought in a Measure to deal with a very objectionable

practice that has grown up in post-war years. I should like to direct my remarks to Clause 13. Apart from minor Amendments, the Bill is going to be welcomed, with the exception of Clause 13, which creates in the minds of those who are interested in fishing the impression that it has been put into the Bill without the consultations that would normally precede such a proposal.
I agree that, as the Clause stands, it is impracticable. I call the attention of the Lord Advocate to the provisions of the Act of 1868, in Section 9 of which powers were given to the Secretary of State upon a petition from a local river board to vary the incidence of the closing and opening times at the weekend provided that the total number of closed hours were observed. Closing time and re-starting time could then be varied in different ways in different districts or even in parts of districts. That arrangement seems a possible avenue of approach as a remedy for the objections that have been made to the present proposal. Suppose the closing hours are to be 42 or 48; they could start at a time to suit local conditions so that no danger was created to the men themselves.
Clause 13 also puts the whole of the burden of any sacrifice in re-stocking the rivers on to the net fishermen. Why should there not, between now and the Committee stage, be consultations with the parties concerned? Could we not devise a compromise by which a contribution is made by the rod fishermen, too? I would refer to the fact which is well-known, that towards the end of the season fishing is unsatisfactory, mainly by reason of the quality of the fish, because most of the fish are spawning. It may well be that the rod interests would be willing to close down a fortnight sooner at the end of the season, if the net fishermen would give way. In that manner the burdens might be shared and harmony might again be brought to the industry, which has been somewhat disrupted. If what I have said can be examined it might be found to provide some contribution from each side to the re-stocking of the rivers.
Another point to which I wish to refer concerns the penalties. These are clearly divided into fines imposed upon summary conviction and fines upon indictment. The river board have hitherto had the duty


of prosecution to discharge but if we are agreed that in future the costs and fines resulting from prosecutions shall go to the Crown, some of the grievances of the river boards might be removed. Perhaps we might get a reply on that point. Clause 2 refers to rod and line. Here, again, I will go back to the Act of 1868. In Section 17 the gaff was proscribed as illegal, although there was a saving sentence at the end of the Section which permitted the gaff to be used as an auxiliary to the rod and line. It is true that in the Bill the inclusion of the gaff as an illegal weapon has been removed by the withdrawal of Section 17 of that Act, yet the gaff is by itself an illegal weapon. I suggest that something might go into the Bill to legalise the gaff as an auxiliary to the rod and line.
We hope that the Bill will get a speedy passage and that it may come into effect in time for the next season. I trust that all hon. Members will do their best to help it.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I hope to keep my remarks fairly brief. First of all I want to say that I am in full agreement with the purposes of the Bill. I think all of us on this side of the House at any rate know, through contacts with fishing and angling interests, how important are the twin problems of poaching and pollution. The Bill is intended to deal with the first of those problems. I am certain that it will do a great deal of good in the production of more fish and the betterment of conditions generally, but there are some points which we shall have to raise in Committee.
Most of the remarks of the Secretary of State in introducing the Bill were directed to fishing and angling for salmon. I want to direct attention to trout. In Ayrshire, in particular, there are many angling clubs. There is the difference between a fishing club and an angling club, I have six angling clubs in my constituency, at Dalry, Kilwinning, Irvine, Dreghorn, Beith and Stewarton. The one at Dalry is among the oldest in Scotland.
I also have close connection with the Ayrshire Angling Association which embraces all those clubs, to the extent of 40 or 50. I am privileged in being one

of their honorary presidents. This angling association has taken a very keen and vivid interest in the problem of poaching as well as in the problem of pollution. I am certain that the Lord Advocate, as well as the Secretary of State, will know the value of the representations that have been coming to them from the Ayrshire Angling Association, which is considered one of the foremost associations in the country. I know the people who are associated with it and I am certain that the representations they have made on poaching and pollution will be well worth noting.
The clubs belonging to the Ayrshire Association support the main objective of the Bill, which is the prevention of poaching. Most of the clubs are concerned with angling for trout and not for salmon, though some of them do mixed fishing, and they go to great pains to stock up the lochs, burns and sections of the river under their care and spend a great deal of money so far as their membership and subscriptions permit in bringing fry from the Bridge of Weir and other places. Some of them spend £60 to £80 per year in keeping their waters well stocked and they disapprove very strongly of people coming along and illegally extracting the trout.
The Bill does not deal only with landlord interests. Many thousands of anglers in the Scottish industrial belt are very keenly interested in this matter, and they are fully in accord with the idea of protecting the trout which they put into the rivers every year. Their re-stocking efforts would be very successful if poaching were stopped.
I was rather astonished when the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) told us he was so friendly with the people committing this offence. I was astonished to think that he was an angler at all. I have heard him speak on many occasions but I have never heard him talk about angling. I know that he has used lures at election time and attracted a great many votes by doing so. At election times he has fished in deep and muddy waters but in 1945 there was a spate which swept away his lures and nearly returned instead my hon. Friend now representing Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who reduced the hon. and gallant Gentleman's majority from 1,300 to 700. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was


rather misguided in giving support to the poachers in the way he did. All the same I think the proposed fine of £10 for a first rod and line offence is rather severe, and we must oppose it very resolutely. Even if the fine were halved it would still be rather a savage infliction on a first offender.
Attention ought to be paid to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) about convictions on the evidence of one witness under Clause 7 (3). Most of us who have experience of the work of lay magistrates would be dubious about accepting the evidence even of well tried and trusted members of our own police forces by itself as sufficient evidence for conviction. I do not believe that there will be the difficulty to which my right hon. Friend pointed. I do not think it will be impossible for witnesses to be procured even in isolated districts because they are obtained for most other offences. I have never been keen on convictions recorded upon the evidence of single witnesses.

Mr. J. Stuart: To revert to the hon. Member's last point, it does not mean that the fine must be £10; £10 is the maximum. Most of the fines have been in the neighbourhood of £1, £2 or £3.

Mr. Manuel: That may be so, but neither my right hon. Friend nor the Lord Advocate can control what may be imposed as a first fine and obviously it can be as much as £10. We should make certain that people will not be fined £10 for a first offence.
The proposal to extend by 12 hours the period when nets shall not be used will bring enormous benefit to rod and line fishing. Representations have been made by angling associations and clubs, boards and others interested in river fishing to extend the period when nets shall not be used in the estuaries and the lower reaches of rivers in order to allow more fish up the rivers. Together with the prevention of pollution, this can do much to improve the stocking of our rivers which are at present not producing the salmon yield to rod and line in the upper reaches which they should because many fish are secured in nets at the mouth of the river.
Because the Government have taken such a keen interest in hill and in sheep farming, in particular, and there have been

fairly good Government grants for drainage schemes, there is a quicker draining off of water from the hill farms when there is rain, and this creates problems of flooding and the washing away of good spawning beds, which means a prospect of fewer fish in the rivers in future. While the Government are taking that interest in the hill farms they ought also to give some thought to conditions in the lower reaches of the rivers and to measures which will allow fish life and fish sustenance to remain in the rivers so that the fish may increase. I give my full support to the Bill. I have raised one or two small points to which I hope that the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State will give some thought.

8.0 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I am glad to hear from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) that the angling clubs in Ayrshire are restocking, because this is an industry from which we cannot take out all the time. We have to put something back. I was closely associated for 20 years with the salmon industry in this country and overseas, and I learned that lesson.
Listening to the debate tonight I realise that this is one more effort by our democratic way of life to resist the encroachment of mankind, mainly for reasons of cash, on wild life. The history of the civilised world shows that the wild things of value are gradually being wiped out. In the United States of America, on the east coast, salmon is now frequently referred to as Penobscott salmon. It was the greatest salmon river on the east coast of the United States. It became a "free for all" and now it is only a memory as a salmon producing river.
I am glad of the opportunity of saying that in this House because many hon. Members opposite, who, in their youth, walked the Highlands, said that the wild things in the sea and in the air and on the land, put there by the Creator, were there for the benefit of the people. That may be true, but it is only partly true. Unless mankind cares for them, preserves them and spends effort and money on them, they will be wiped out. That is the fear which was overshadowing this industry and prompted this Bill, which I warmly support with the exception of Clause 13.
My constituency was probably the greatest sufferer from the gangsters who have been referred to today. They will be dealt with under this Bill, provided it is enforced. That gives me some anxiety, for which I feel I must give reasons. The law was not enforced in my constituency, although it was there to be enforced. A disgraceful state of affairs prevailed for several months, and responsibility for the lack of enforcement of the law starts with the Scottish Office and goes right down to the local police force.

Mr. Woodburn: indicated dissent.

Sir D. Robertson: I see the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) shaking his head, but I would remind him that a substantial part of the white fishing industry in Helmsdale last spring abandoned their legal calling and illegally netted that river, which provides a considerable amount of employment, and contributes six times more in rates than the village of Helmsdale. That fishing was done with hung nets, which are illegal. They were there for everybody to see by day and also night, for there is practically no darkness in Caithness and Sutherland at that time of the year. Authority looked on and did nothing—

Mr. Woodburn: I think the hon. Member will realise that until this Bill is passed into law, what he calls "authority," in the sense of the Scottish Office and the police could not interfere because it was not their duty. The duty lay elsewhere—on the district boards, on the bailiffs and others, not on the police.

Sir D. Robertson: Much as I would like to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great regard, I cannot accept that because I saw this situation. The Lord Lieutenant of Sutherland wrote to me. He had tried to get action taken—he was one of the river proprietors—and could not, either by the police or by whoever was responsible for enforcing the law. The water bailiff, one elderly ex-soldier, was not much of a match for at least 50 fishermen. He might have tackled them if he had been a gallant soul, but he did not try. These ratepayers and citizens had the right to demand that these illegal nets should be pulled in. It was a disgraceful eight. Hon. Members who know the

Helmsdale River know that it is narrow and runs right into the sea. There were 20 fixed nets blockading it; nothing could get in or out. When the Scottish Office did nothing, I saw them myself—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not understand how this is connected with the Bill.

Sir D. Robertson: I am trying to make the important point that it does not matter what the House writes into the Bill, now or in the Committee stage. If the law is not enforced, we are wasting our time and are failing to give the industry and the people the protection to which they are entitled. With great respect, I say that is material to this Bill, and I am giving concrete cases which I raised in the House and which had some part in the preparation of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is very likely; as far as I understand, we pass the legislation but it is not our responsibility to put it into effect.

Sir D. Robertson: But, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, who is to prosecute? Who is to enforce? Surely that is a perfectly good point to make on the Bill. That is the point I am making and I maintain, with the greatest respect, that I am wholly in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must, with equal respect, say that the hon. Gentleman is not in order.

Sir D. Robertson: If you have taken legal advice on the matter, Sir, then that must be so, and I defer to the Table.

Mr. Woodburn: On a point of order. I think the hon. Gentleman must not defer, Sir, to the Table when a Ruling is made from the Chair. That is a reflection on the Chair. He ought to withdraw that statement.

Sir D. Robertson: Certainly, I withdraw anything which is offensive, particularly to the Table.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Table has nothing to do with it. I take full responsibility for my Ruling.

Sir D. Robertson: That only reveals my innocence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for I have made the same mistake again in good faith. This question of enforcement must be left until the Committee stage when,


may be, it will be in order. I submit, however, that it is a great problem.
The other matter about which I wish to speak is licensing, which was recommended by the Maconochie Committee but has been left out of the Bill. It is insufficient to take the man who is guilty of catching the salmon illegally and to leave the receiver untouched. I regard him as at least as big a villain, if not the greater villain. He provides the market. In the Helmsdale case the racketeer at Birmingham was completely untouched, so, even though it may be a little troublesome, licensing should be considered seriously. In the other case of which the Under-Secretary and the Lord Advocate are aware, the cyanide poisoning case in the river Cassley in my constituency, where £1,000 was paid for one night's foul work, once again the receiver, who was really the instigator of that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This seems to be the same line which I said was out of order a little while ago. It has nothing to do with the Bill.

Sir D. Robertson: Licensing is referred to in the Maconochie Report, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is at least a page on it. The Secretary of State said that he was not able to introduce licensing. I should have thought that in a Second Reading debate I was fully entitled to mention that subject. This is a question of licensing the dealer in salmon. I was pointing out that the receiver of salmon in both the notorious cases I have mentioned, which probably were the worst that have occurred in Scotland, should be affected by the Bill. In the cyanide case the three men who threw the cans into the water were fined £5 each, but the firm who got the salmon, and who paid £953 for it to their agent for dispersal among the three poachers, got away scot free. That is not good enough.
It is absolutely essential that the Bill should be strengthened by a provision for the introduction of licences. That would not only kill the lucrative southern market—in the Helmsdale case the market was Birmingham, and in the other case the market was a cold storage firm outside Inverness—but it would bring an end to this very large back door trade with hotels. I do not blame the hoteliers in the Highlands for wanting to supply their customers with salmon. The tourist

trade is of great importance to the whole of the Highland area, particularly to my two counties. People who go there naturally want to eat salmon.
There is a point here which should be seriously considered. I suggest that it should be made possible for hotels to buy salmon legally. If that were done, the black market would disappear almost overnight. I cannot imagine that the hoteliers would want to deal in a black market if they could get salmon at a fair price from a legal source. It is a fact that when the fishmongers in my constituency have attempted to buy salmon they have been told, "No, it has all to go to London." They have been told that the salmon fishery people were merely producers. That was true, but it would be desirable for them to stretch a point and to permit the local hotels and restaurants to buy salmon at the market price of the day. If that was done the black market would, to a large extent, disappear. That is the view of the hoteliers with whom I have discussed the matter.
I wish to discuss Clause 13. There may be something in what was said by the Secretary of State, that this may be for the ultimate good of the industry. I know most of the rivers in Eastern and Western Canada, Labrador, Newfoundland, Ireland, England and Wales. It is true that if more fish are allowed to escape, then more will ultimately reach the spawning grounds. If the spawning grounds are available and are in a fit state to permit spawning—because often they are not—we will get an increased supply of salmon.
But is this not the wrong way to do it? This is the only legal supply of salmon for the people, and the Minister is interfering with it. This will be done at the expense of the people who buy the salmon which does not find its way to the black market but which goes to the big markets at Billingsgate, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool, and so on. The Minister should be very chary before he interferes with that supply, which provides a valuable source of part-time or seasonal employment to crofters and other people.
As the Under-Secretary of State knows, this subject is of vital importance to the Government and to everyone who has


the honour to represent a Highland constituency. This work is a godsend to the Hebrides. Many of the men come from Stornoway and the islands in that neighbourhood. At the end of the season they take back home a sum of money which helps to make their crofts provide a livelihood.
There is another aspect of this matter, and it is that these very fine and old-established people who are in this salmon netting industry are, in the main, tenants of the Crown. The Crown is the landlord and takes a rent of £18,000 a year for the fishing done at sea, close to the mouths of the rivers. These men are actuated with good will, and they realise that what is good in a long-term view for the well-being of the industry must be good for them. Why sweep them up into a poaching Bill at a time when the Government must know that it was about 1860 that the last Salmon Act was passed, when it is so hopelessly out of date and when there are so many other things to be done?
One of the other things requiring to be done is the stopping of under-fishing, which is a danger second only to over-fishing, and we have that problem in Sutherland. I have raised the matter in the House, because crofters have come to me wanting to rent a sea fishery which had been open year after year, but the river proprietors have come along and closed down that fishery. I am talking of the River Naver. There is not a single coastal letting anywhere near, or anywhere near the River Laxford, and these are two of the best rivers in Scotland. I am told that a rod right on the Naver was sold recently for as much as £40,000. That was a high cost, paid for by the migration of Sutherland men and women, bringing misery and unhappiness and unemployment. No bona fide enterprise should be stopped.
I think that, before the Minister begins to tamper with the salmon netting industry, which provides the people's food and is honourably conducted, with no smear of the black market attaching to it, he should consider under-fishing, underemployment, deficiencies in food supplies and all the other things that need taking care of now. There has not been enough money spent on the preparation of the spawning beds in the rivers and tributaries, or in removing the obstructions

from the spawning beds. These things want doing. There are falls which no gallant fish should be expected to surmount. They should be dynamited and levelled off, but, because the upper part belongs to one owner and the lower part to another, nothing has been done about them.
The people in the salmon netting industry are led by Mr. Malloch, their chairman, and a member of a family which did so much to revive the Tay, of which we have heard a great deal today. When the Tay Company was formed, three public-spirited men concerned in it were held up as Tory reactionaries, and the predecessors of hon. Gentlemen opposite made speeches saying that Tory reactionaries were taking away the poor man's salmon. In those days, some farm servants objected to getting salmon more than twice a week. Every farmer had a right to fish, with a total disregard of tomorrow.
The Tay Company came along and got them all in its powerful grip. The first thing the company did was to close two-thirds of the netting stations, and they can be seen today between Perth and Newburgh or Dundee—the little beaches where they used to work, standing as a monument to over-fishing days. The value of the Tay has gone up, and the value of the catch has gone up, and there is a graph in the company's office at Perth which shows it going up at an angle of 45 degrees, with occasional recessions due to bad seasons and the like. That was wise fishing, because they maintained adequate netting, adequate angling and adequate stock, and the river was maintained just as any well-conducted river can be maintained.
This Bill is just a panic Measure; it is acting simply on the advice of scientists, who were probably asked the question, "If we eliminate 12 hours' fishing, would it increase the stock?" Of course, the answer would be bound to be yes. Therefore, I appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland and to his colleague on the Front Bench to give very serious consideration to this problem. I appeal to them to eliminate Clause 13 from the Bill, and to get busy immediately preparing a much bigger and better Bill which will deal with all the anomalies and all the things that should be done, and to carry this fine body of men with them, men who have no right


to be condemned, injured, and pre-judged without a hearing.
When I listened to the Secretary of State this afternoon, I had the feeling that he had a "hunch" about this matter. I wonder whether he has read the book written by Mr. Menzies, a retired salmon fishery inspector? The object of the Bill is to stop gangsters carrying out the destructive practices about which we all know, but the suppliers of the people's salmon, who provide wages for many crofters should not be victimised, even if it is for their own good, during the few months that would have to elapse before a new Bill can be brought in which would deal with pollution, and so on, along the lines about which the Secretary of State spoke.
In conclusion, I should like to add my thanks to the Maconochie Committee for the work they did in preparing the Bill, and to give my support to the Government, but I earnestly hope that the points I have made in regard to enforcement, in regard to Clause 13, and in regard to licensing will be seriously considered before the Committee stage.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: If the Secretary of State for Scotland hoped that the Bill would be received with overwhelming enthusiasm, I think he will be a little wiser after listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). I must confess that my feelings are rather mixed on this matter, and I hope to touch upon some of the points that have been mentioned.
This Bill arose out of something new in the salmon and trout fishing of Scotland—the depredations of the salmon gangster. In so far as the Bill deals with that problem—although I do not think it goes sufficiently far in that direction—I certainly support it. I do not think that anyone can have any sympathy at all for the salmon "spivs" who take advantage of a black market and of high prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), I think it was, wondered whether there was really a case for the Bill at all. When people can make £100 or so in a couple of hours, or, as in a case reported quite recently, can get a cheque for £953 by killing a couple of hundred salmon, we realise why the Government were compelled to set up

the Maconochie Committee. In so far as it deals with that problem, I am prepared to support the Bill.
No one can have any sympathy for the salmon gangsters. For the 200 salmon which they take from the rivers, there are probably hundreds more left dead, and the effect on stocks is really very serious indeed. But the Bill fails to take action against the people who are the source of these acts. These gangsters would not go a couple of hundred miles and risk what risks are involved, even today, if there were not the market for the fish. I do not think it is good enough for the Secretary of State for Scotland to come down here and talk about the "disproportionate administrative burden" involved in establishing a licensing system. I think we are in order in dealing with licences, because the Bill is based on the Maconochie Report and the Report insists upon the advisability of using a licensing system. The Committee stated:
The object of large-scale poaching operations is, of course, to dispose of the catch for cash. In order to confine the traffic in salmon and trout as far as possible to legitimate channels, therefore, it is obviously desirable that a system of licences to deal in these fish should be introduced …
I do not think the Secretary of State has done justice to the Committee in dismissing that by talking of administrative difficulties. This licensing system is in operation in the case of game and other things. It could be applied here, and it is only in that way that we can deal with the real criminal who is the source of the trouble. In that sense the Bill is weak. We deal with the gangster poacher; we even deal with the vehicle, and have gone out of our way to ensure that his vehicle will come under the Clause for confiscation of engines, etc.; but we fail to deal with the black marketeer, the unscrupulous dealer and the unscrupulous caterer. Like the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I think it is an important point, and the Government must pay attention to it.
As I listened today, I heard speeches, starting with the Secretary of State for Scotland and followed by hon. Member after hon. Member, referring to the traditional poacher. When one recollects fairly modern literature and some of the lighter drama of Scotland as well as the speeches in this House, the traditional poacher becomes a very laudable


character. I began to wonder why this Bill was introduced, when its first Clause actually doubles the fine on this laudable character. I should have thought from the speeches today that it would have been the general wish of the House that this fine should be removed altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart), suggested that we should not worry about this and that actually the fines imposed were only from about £1 to £2 and would not go up to £10. If the fines would only be £1 or £2, why raise the limit to £10? Surely that is an indication to the judiciary that they have not been hard enough and an invitation to them to be more severe on the traditional poacher.
This provision in the Bill is causing concern in some parts of Scotland, and I do not mind saying that it is causing me concern. Although I am a Lowlander born, my people came from the Highlands of Scotland, and I think the attitude of the Highlander to poaching is that he does not consider it illegal. There is no historical reason why he should do so, when one remembers the history of the clans and of common ownership. He just does not recognise private ownership of fishing.

Mr. McGovern: Communal property.

Mr. Ross: This Bill introduced to deal with the gangster "spiv" type of poacher is overlapping and encroaching upon the traditional poacher. In going outside the original scope, the Secretary of State has not done a wise thing at all. The Maconochie Committee themselves recognised, by implication at least, that there was a fine type of poacher in Scotland, because in their recommendations they speak of "a contemptible class of poachers." If one class is contemptible, the other class must be quite respectable. I feel that that is a weakness in the Bill which cannot be supported.
In dealing with the actual problem, the Bill is good, so far as it goes, but in so far as it oversteps the scope of the original investigations, it is not worthy of support. On this question of poachers, I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has left the Chamber because he was under a considerable misapprehension about what a

poacher is. He seemed to think that an angling club was the equivalent of a poaching club. I do not think he will endear himself to the anglers of Ayrshire who have one of the strongest associations in Scotland; about 5,000 anglers are affiliated to that association.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not the case that when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) made that statement, he was referring to members of an angling club who were legally entitled to fish for trout but were taking salmon? That was my understanding.

Mr. Ross: I do not think so. There are about 40 of these clubs in Ayrshire, and I know of one in Kilmarnock, which fish both for salmon and for trout. I should like to refer to an honorary vice-president of that club for confirmation of my remarks, but I do not think that I shall bother to do so. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to imply that poachers were in the same category as angling associations, but he was wrong. Actually the angling association of Ayrshire has been conducting prosecutions against poachers in the past year.
While I am on this point I should like to assure the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel), was not drawing a long bow and praising his own county on slight evidence when he referred to what was being done about re-stocking in Ayrshire. They have been re-stocking for the past 10 years. They have introduced six hatcheries, 135,000 fry, 50,000 yearlings and 5,000 two year old trout.

Sir D. Robertson: I hope that nothing I have said has given the hon. Member the impression which appears to be in his mind. I have had a long association with Ayrshire. I am a past-president of the London Ayrshire Society, and I am proud of the county's efforts to improve angling.

Mr. Ross: I know the hon. Member's association with Ayrshire. However, I will not go into that point, nor will I refer to a certain speech he made which has ruined him as far as I am concerned. I hope he will not make any further reference to Burns.

Sir D. Robertson: Did the hon. Member hear the speech?

Mr. Ross: So far as the Bill meets the main problem, I support it, but so far as it fails to deal adequately with that problem and operates harshly against the traditional poacher, I think it is weak. The Second Reading of this Bill is worthy of support, for the people against whom it is aimed deserve no sympathy from anyone who is interested in fishing, but I hope that ways and means will be found to make it a better Bill.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I was interested in what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, because I think a great deal too much has been said today about these poachers. It has been overdone. I know that all of us have sympathy with the man who goes out to get a day's sport, but when it comes to Members of Parliament saying that poachers are good chaps—in other words, supporting illegal poachers—I think we are doing the wrong thing. I suppose that if we accept that it is all right to take a salmon, we shall advocate next that it is all right to take a sheep, as long as it is a Scotch sheep. There is a very good reason for increasing the maximum fine for this poaching, and I will explain why in a moment.
I want first to apologise, as an Englishman, for intervening in the debate. I have enjoyed many good days' fishing in Scotland, however, although I found the fish very red and sulky sometimes when I was up there in August; and I have fished on the river which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), where £950 worth of fish was taken out in one night.
Why is this Bill about Scotland only? The evil exists in England as well. It does not exist perhaps quite to such an extent as in Scotland, but we also have rivers, we have too few bailiffs, we have bits of isolated country, there are plenty of business men with an eye to quick profits, we have the motor cars and the explosives and the gases, and there are plenty of willing buyers who are ready to pay high prices. One of my hon. Friends reminds me that we have not the Bill, and I hope we have not to wait for another Report like the Maconochie Report before steps are taken to deal with the English rivers, because these salmon

fishing rivers are valuable assets to any country. We have seen the fishing industry in Ireland almost spoiled by poaching, although they have now pulled it together and the position is looking brighter. We do not want to see the same thing happen in Scotland, and if it extends to England it will be worse still.
Some hon. Members have spoken of the evil which is done by these poachers in that they kill riot only the young fish but also the salmon going towards the burns to spawn. I want hon. Members to realise that there is another side to it. I know it is killing a great amount of fish and spoiling the rivers for the future, but there is a humane side to the problem as well. As a result of using explosives, a great deal of pain is caused to these fish. Indeed, fish have been known to float to the surface as long as five days after the explosion. Thus, this action causes a great deal of pain and suffering to what we might call harmless animals and, from the humanitarian point of view, I welcome anything which can be done to prevent explosives from being used in the rivers. As we know only too well, they have been used recently.
I am also glad that under the Bill bailiffs will have power to search. If they can do that, they will be useful people and it will encourage the employment of more bailiffs. It is not worth while paying the wages of these men, who are expensive to maintain, unless they are to perform some useful function. If they can perform a useful function, we shall be encouraging the employment of more river watchers, because the private owner will realise that it is worth paying a man to watch his rivers if it will be of some value. I wonder whether it will be an offence under the Bill to warn of the approach of a bailiff. I know that it will be an offence to obstruct a bailiff, but, equally will it be obstructing, if anyone warns of the approach of one of these bailiffs?
The other point I want to raise is about vehicles. They can be forfeited, as we have heard, but only after conviction on indictment. Could this not be done on summary conviction as well? I think I am right in saying that if a man is caught poaching rabbits, his gun can be taken away on his summary conviction. I know that these vehicles are


much bigger things than a small shotgun, but could not the forfeiture be applied in this instance, too, on summary conviction?
Like many other people, I have some sympathy with the over-keen fisherman who does a bit of poaching, but I think there is very good reason for raising the fine to a maximum of £10. Many of these gangsters go out on reconnaissance first. One will do a bit of line and rod fishing, and if somebody comes along and questions him, he says, "I am very sorry. I have mistaken the water. I was only keen for a bit of sport." But just as burglars go round houses on reconnaissance a few days before the burglary is attempted, so these gangsters have reconnaissance, too; so that if a man who is poaching, not for a bit of sport and for the sake of his larder, but in preparation for operations by a gang, is caught, and if the court can fine him more heavily, it will be a useful deterrent. I think it is a useful course to put up the maximum fine.
I firmly believe that the extension of the close time for netting in this Bill is of great benefit. Anybody who has a grouse moor in Scotland does not overshoot the moor, but leaves stock for next year. People shooting at the end of the season shoot only pheasant cocks in order to be sure of keeping a plentiful supply of hens to keep up the stock. I am utterly convinced that this Clause 13 is a good one, and that it will be of enormous advantage in the long run. I am extremely dismayed, however, to hear that the Government have not even had the courtesy to ask the netting interests what they think of it, and although I think the Clause is good, I hope that the Government will have the courtesy to ask people who make their money out of net fishing what they think of it before the next stage of the Bill.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I felt a lot of sympathy with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) when he deplored the sad history of the exploitation and depopulation of the county he now has more than the honour to represent, but I do say that instead of implying—even implying—a criticism of the present Government or of St. Andrew's House or of the

police of the county, he should have given the real reasons for that depopulation, and the despoliation of that once rich and well populated county by the Tory predecessors of the present hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is making agricultural noises. I do not know whether he is approaching the matter from a different angle from the rest of us; but I would remind him that we are no longer discussing hill farming.
I must say, in all honesty, that this is in many senses a luxury Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) went so far as to say it was not altogether necessary. It is not, in one way. I believe myself that, in some ways, he is correct. It deals with a luxury commodity. If we regard salmon simply as food it is hotel food. It is an expensive food even in hotels. It is a luxury food wherever it is bought. It is expensive in the shops. It is true to say that the mass of the ordinary people have very little interest in the protection of an expensive commodity held as the exclusive property of private landowners.
I am sorry to have to say it; but, really, what the ordinary person thinks about it is that the Bill amounts to protecting, by legislation, one set of "spivs" against another. [Laughter.] I should be sorry if I gave too much offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite, or to the "spivs" represented so ably by hon. Members opposite tonight. But that is how many of the ordinary people see it; and the Bill at first sight does seem strongly tainted and tinctured with the intention of encouraging entrenched landlordism still more in the Scottish countryside. Perhaps I might be allowed to agree, at this great intellectual distance, with Shakespeare, when he said:
there be land-rats and water-rats, land-thieves and water-thieves.
That is what I believe we are doing—protecting the land thieves from a few water thieves and the landlords from other "spivs." Therefore, in that sense, I do not like the Bill. I would rather have a Bill for nationalisation or bringing these fisheries under some form of public or national ownership, so that they would be properly developed and properly stewarded, stocked and maintained so as to give pleasure to many thousands of people throughout the country who are now debarred.
In supporting the Bill in its main provisions, as I do, I do not want to be associated with the idea of supporting or condoning the present system of ownership of the salmon waters. I look at this matter from the point of view of the national interest, and not the purely personal vested interest from which hon. Members opposite see it. I shall cite Tom Johnston later and, first Carlyle who, in one vivid sentence, said:
It is noteworthy that the nobles of Scotland have maintained a quite despicable behaviour, from the days of Wallace downwards—a selfish, ferocious, famishing, unprincipled set of hyenas, from whom at no time and in no way has the country derived any benefit whatsoever.
That is perfectly true, and nowhere more true than in the Highlands.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is a living witness, except in political sense, to the fact that his county has suffered from 100 years of despoliation by landlord "spivs," organised and unorganised. We must protect the fisheries and the salmon as a potential—and, I hope at a not far distant future, an actual—national asset, in the sense that the nation will, as a nation, own them and develop a general public interest in protecting, as well as enjoying, them. Every real fisherman—I do not mean the owners of these waters; I do not mean syndicates, or the remote London stockbroker who goes up to the Highlands to his estate and comes between the Highlander and the hill and stream, between a man and his native rights—I mean the real fisherman, who is a fisherman at heart—has as his idea of the Statue of Liberty a statue of the "Compleat Angler" with his rod and line at one hand and in the other the scales of freedom or justice weighing, before it got away, an immense salmon, living, radiant, irresistible, poached or unpoached.
I shall, now, be more conservative as a Highlander, than even the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. I recognise no change, in the Highlands since well before the Forty-Five, so far as the natural right to fish is concerned. I hope that is conservative enough for the hon. Gentleman. That period of clan organisation is a century or two behind even his present level of political enlightenment and progress. I am quite willing to accept and sustain the old Highland clan system of common ownership and common

stewardship for the community. I believe that it is every man's right to take a salmon, subject to responsible safeguards under public control and in the general interest.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that under old Scots law, no one could take a salmon unless he had a plough of 100 acres of land?

Mr. MacMillan: The old days of wicked controls under the Tories and Whigs do not concern me at the moment. I am talking of the Highlands and the clan system of common ownership. In the Highlands we did not recognise Scots law as applied to the Lowlands. The hon. Gentleman should realise that we only recognised Scots law when we were apprehended and brought before the courts of Scotland and had to recognise it. The Highlanders were largely a law unto themselves. They obeyed the law of nature. They followed the laws laid down in the Old Testament:
Moreover, the produce of the earth is for all.

Mr. Nabarro: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Englishman does not obey the laws of nature?

Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member obviously rises on the impulse of nature. We sometimes enjoy the interruptions, but we do not often benefit very much.
We recognise, then, the fine principle in the Old Testament which says that the produce of the earth is for all, which means under proper stewardship, management and safeguards. That is what I propose should be done in the Bill. I hope to make this strictly relevant by moving certain Amendments in due course. We must, I agree, protect what should be made, as soon as possible, a really national asset in the national ownership sense. We must, meantime, protect the salmon fisheries and other fisheries from organised gangs of "spivs" with poisons, explosives and all the other forms of illegal and brutal taking of fish. I agree with the hon. Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. G. Williams) that it is important that we should try to avoid the destruction and damage done to so much fish, which, very often, is never removed at all, but incidentally mutilated.
I want to put in a plea for the gentleman who has been called the poacher


tonight. A £10 fine, as now proposed, is quite ridiculous. The price of clothing has gone up considerably and the general cost of living; and the price of poachers' gear has gone up, apart from any facetious point, what is the sense of increasing the fine from £5 to £10 when the sheriffs think that £1 to £3 is quite sufficient in most cases? I am sure that the Secretary of State will consider Amendments on this point. Is it policy to bring all the solemn dignity and consequence of the British Legislature to bear on a small depredation of a country working man who has failed to resist the temptation of a salmon for his own table to the extent of fining him £10? There is a great deal to be said for the rights of the small man who takes a small fish or even a large fish, once in a while, in his native streams.
There is an important legend on one of our burgh coats of arms, at Stornoway in the Hebrides, which says, "God's produce is our inheritance." It would be too much like looking a gift horse in the face not to exercise the right to take fish as part of our inheritance, subject to certain safeguards from abuse. In that area, we are largely a classless society and we do not look on a person who takes a fish as a sinner. He may be an offender, or even a criminal, but never does he come up to the high level of a sinner.
It is slightly surprising, if we have legislative time for a Bill of this kind, that we could not have brought in a Bill to deal with illegal sea trawling on a big scale among the trawlers and ships owned by great syndicates in the country who are illegally depriving, every day, hundreds of small fishermen of a livelihood in our local bays and territorial waters. We do not have time to investigate their victims' needs and to introduce any proposal to increase the penalties on them, to forfeit the vessels or really heavily punish them; and yet we have time, in this Bill, to increase the penalties on small poachers and others. I wish that we were able to deal in some comprehensive way with that bigger matter.
Mention has been made of the pollution of our rivers. That has done more harm, in the aggregate, than all the explosives and poisons of the gangs to the salmon population. So far very little has been done, except by certain local authorities taking local action. It is time

that we made a real attack on river pollution. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that we want to get to the source of this problem, and that we want to get at the person who tempts the other people who go out and do, at least, take some risks. These receivers and such people will not be punished. They are not compelled to license themselves. But I am also personally alarmed that the right to search is so extensive under the Bill. Incidentally, a woman poacher can only be searched by a woman officer, but I notice that a similar protection is not given to a male poacher.

Mr. McNeil: Do not be too pessimistic.

Mr. MacMillan: We are not getting at the buyer, the thug in the background. We are not getting at the man in the hotel, in the shop and the market, the big fellow who is at the receiving end. He is the one who makes most of the profits.
Again, I am greatly alarmed by the fact that two persons constitute a gang. When a man and woman go out together, perhaps a man and wife, they will be treated as forming a group of piscatorial Lollards, and they will be liable to the heaviest consequences of the new law. I take it that they will get off if they happen to be working 100 yards apart. A great extension is being made in the powers of search, which must be watched most carefully.
The proposition was made from the other side that we should extend the right to institute private prosecutions in the case of certain boards, so that they could make sure they would cover their costs from the fines they obtained. I cannot imagine a more astonishing proposition. It would be a vicious thing that any extension in that direction should be permitted. The fact is that a lot of the trouble has arisen from the failure of private landlords to keep their rivers clean, and to appoint sufficient bailiffs and staff, which it is their legal and moral duty to do.
The Bill does not create any more bailiffs, police or other people to deal with the increasing number of offences, which are the justification for it. All it does is to increase the fines, and I doubt


whether it will be effective. What is the alternative? We could have a new Bill. In this connection, I will quote what an ex-member of the National Liberal Party, a very respected member, had to say about salmon fisheries.
Sir Murdoch MacDonald told the House, in 1936:
There are hundreds of Highland lochs, and I would like to see those taken over from the proprietors and made public under, say, the county councils. We live in a democratic country, and we shall continue to use democratic methods so long as we possibly can in developing the resources of our country. Fishing in the Highlands could he made to give pleasure to vast numbers of people who today, when on holiday, are debarred from fishing, because in every place the sporting tenant has the sole"—
in this case, "sole" means salmon—
fishing rights.
Tom Johnston, who has been referred to in glowing terms by the present Secretary of State, also in the House, on the same occasion, in December, 1936, said:
It is common knowledge that lands have been closed, that roads have been closed and that everything possible has been done to turn vast tracts of the Highlands of Scotland into a wilderness, a sportsman's paradise.
He then quoted a notice which he saw in Skye, where people were told to get away from the pleasures of fishing. This is what the notice said:
Warning to trespassers and visitors. The soft-nose bullet carries far and inflicts a nasty wound. Visitors are warned to keep away.
Is that the way to improve and develop the tourist industry? Sir Murdoch MacDonald, was supported then, by Mr. Johnston, who said:
… the Forestry Commissioners, the Crown Land Commissioners and every other public and semi-public board which is owning or controlling land in the North of Scotland—should get a public utility body formed at once to take over all the fishing rights for the State. If that were done the poor man could be given a chance to enjoy the sport of angling, and it would be possible to attract thousands and thousands of people to the Highlands of Scotland every year, certainly during the holiday months. Something on a big scale should he done quickly for the tourist traffic.… What are we doing that we allow a mere handful of people—many of them aliens at that—a mere handful of people for whom the nation should have no concern whatever, to put up notices:
'The soft-nosed bullet carries far and inflicts a nasty wound.'
Why should we he hunted off the land of our forebears? Why should the North of

Scotland be a sportsman's paradise for a few?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1936; Vol. 318, c. 2549–2574.]
I commend this to the Secretary of State and also to Mr. Tom Johnston in his capacity not only as Chairman of the Hydro-Electric Board, but also of the Scottish Tourist Board, and also to the Department of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and all public bodies in Scotland. In particular I commend this as the real and lasting solution to the Secretary of State for Scotland—to create a participating public interest in the enjoyment and, therefore, the protection of what thus would become a truer national asset.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Gage: I make no apology for intervening in a Scottish debate, though I confess I have only realised the terrors since hearing the speech of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). I should say that I have some knowledge of the subject. First, I must confess that I am one of those people who have occasionally taken a fish without first taking fully into my confidence the owners of the banks of the rivers. In that, at least, I will be commended by the hon. Member for the Western Isles. I am glad to hear the tributes paid to my friend the poacher. I will see that they are brought to their attention, and will tell them that the Scots, with an hypocrisy which we had hitherto attributed to the English, shed sympathetic tears, while at the same time increasing the fines in respect of their poaching.
It is rather a pity that rod line poaching fines have been put up. Generally speaking, the rod and line poachers are sportsmen and fish in that way only because they are not rich enough to be able to rent stretches of the river. I have always felt that people who live in a particular river valley should have rights in regard to taking fish out of a river. In any event, I do not think they do much harm with rod and line.
The evil at which the Bill is chiefly aimed is organised gangsters who come from the towns and take fish out of the rivers. We have had experience of this in Northern Ireland, and we have dealt with it by two Acts of Parliament, the Game Preservation Act and the Wildfowl Protection Act. I want to emphasise to


the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the Lord Advocate what our experience has been. It is that if we want to stop this practice, we have to attack, not the fellow who is taking the fish out of the river, but the market in which he sells it. It has been said again and again that if there were no receivers there would be no thieves. The real fault lies with the big hotels and restaurants which provide a ready market for poached fish. We found that it was best to get at them right at the very beginning, because that is where the real offence is committed. In the North of Ireland we have had no difficulty in making these people keep a register. I ask the Lord Advocate to look at Section 3 (1) of our Game Preservation Act, and he will see that they have to keep a register of all the sales that are made.
From the experience we have had in Northern Ireland in dealing with this matter, I would respectfully suggest that the way to stop salmon poaching is to say that everyone fishing for salmon ought to have a licence. One has to have it for shooting game. It could be quite a cheap one, costing perhaps only 5s. It would have to be registered at the Post Office with a number. When a sale of fish was made by the licence holder, it would be the duty of the purchaser to take the name and the number of the licence and to enter the particulars in his register. The police would have a right to examine the register. It would be a perfectly simple thing. The police would go at any time into a shop when game was exposed for sale. They would look at the register and notice the number of the licence, and then they could trace the fish to the person who originally took the salmon from the water.
If fictitious names or numbers were put into the register, we could always attack the people selling the game and make it an offence for them to have in their possession fish which had been illegally obtained. If we saw on the register again and again entries which were quite fictitious, we would have a prima facie case against them, just as we have against a receiver of stolen goods who says that he bought them from a man whose name he does not know at a place he has forgotten, and that he has no receipt.
These are the people to attack, and not the fellow who is poaching. We can try to get the poachers, but really we never can put an end to it in that way. It is quite feasible to have licences and registers. We have had experience of them in Northern Ireland and we have found that the system is quite successful and works quite well. In the main, I agree with the Bill. My intervention has been only brief in order to offer such assistance from Northern Ireland as we can, to our friends across the water.

9.8 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: I am sure that the Secretary of State will examine with interest the practical proposals which have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage) as a result of the experience in Northern Ireland.
The debate has been a happy Parliamentary occasion, because most of us have found it a relief after the press of international affairs to indulge in debate on a matter which has many pleasant associations. The debate has been notable if only because it has been one of the rare occasions on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) has allowed himself to be heard. If he did so more often, the affairs of the House might be more interesting, and possibly a great deal shorter.
Something has been said about bouquets. If any more are to be thrown, we might expect one to the Opposition from the Lord Advocate. He will remember that for a good many months at Question Time we pressed for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. The excuse was always made that the legislative programme was too congested. In so far as the Opposition have succeeded in stemming the tide of the Lord President's more theoretical legislation and allowed him to get down to a Bill which is objective, practical and worth while, he should be grateful. I have looked all through the Bill, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and say that, in the political sense at any rate, I can find nothing in it which is "fishy."
The Bill is, of course, designed to deal with the gangster poacher, and hon. Members on all sides of the House are satisfied that the facts have been established. These excursions by gangsters are within


the experience of a good many hon. Members. The facts were established by the Maconochie Committee, and some of them have already been the subject of action in the courts. The Tweed is a very big river and it is very difficult to poach, but in the last four years we have had 250 convictions. Gangs have been working towards the upper reaches of the Tweed with which the bailiffs and the police together have been quite unable to deal, and on one occasion lately 200 spawning fish were taken out of the river and sold in a matter of a few weeks.
As far as I have been able to interpret the debate, there is no sympathy on any side of the House for the people who, by explosives and poison, not only destroy the spawning fish but also damage the young stock on which the future depends. There is no sympathy for any of the people who operate in what is properly called a black market.
I take it, too, that there is general agreement that the only way in which to deal with the problem is to make the penalty fit the crime. In regard to the gangster poacher, I believe that the fines can hardly be too high. If the fine had stood alone, there would almost have been a case for raising it higher still, but it does not stand alone, and in indictable cases there are not only heavy fines but there can be confiscation of gear, including the motor vehicle, and a prison sentence and we believe that the cumulative effect of the penalties should be an effective deterrent. Probably rightly, the Secretary of State said that he will look again at the £10 fine for the first offender. Of course, that is a maximum, but I do not believe that anybody feels very strongly about it, and I hope that he will not take too hasty a decision to lower it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn drew attention to the importance which the Maconochie Committee attached to licensing. The Committee had not, of course, seen the Bill when they made the recommendation. It is true that where there is the right to search vehicles and premises, and where it is necessary for anybody who is sending fish by rail or road to label the packages, there are considerable additional safeguards, but even so it would seem a valid criticism of the Bill to say that, whereas the penalties come down very heavily on the poacher, the man who tempts, aids

and abets and profits, is to a large extent immune.
The reason the Secretary of State gave for rejecting the proposal to introduce licences did not seem to me to be entirely convincing. I think his words were that it would cause a disproportionate administrative burden. But is that so? My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South, has suggested how, with comparative simplicity, it is carried out in Northern Ireland. I would not have thought it would be difficult to use this Bill to amend the Act dealing with the sale of game, putting salmon and trout on the same basis as pheasants and partridges and other game for the purposes of sale. As we attach a good deal of importance to this, I ask the Minister to consider it before the Committee stage.
As I read the Bill, the omission of a positive instruction will debar a river authority or the Fishmongers Company or a private individual from instituting and carrying through a prosecution. Therefore, all cases in Scotland will be brought to the courts at the instance of the Lord Advocate or the Procurator-Fiscal. I wonder why the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate want to upset the present procedure which is working efficiently? My right hon. Friend gave examples of the way in which the Fishmongers Company have conducted their prosecutions. On the Tweed we operate in seven sheriff courts and three police courts in England. All the cases are co-ordinated by our superintendent, and we have conducted these affairs efficiently and smoothly. I cannot see that there is any good reason for upsetting this practice.
If the Bill passes, it will raise extraordinary anomalies for the Tweed. We shall be able to prosecute some offenders under our own Tweed Act. As regards the part of the river which is in England, we shall be able to bring cases before the appropriate courts in England, but for these new offences we shall have no status. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that before the Committee stage he should give general consideration to this as it affects the whole country and, in particular, as it affects the Tweed. We shall reserve the right to move Amendments so as to explore, and possibly improve, this position before the Committee stage is finished.
What about the destiny of the fines? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at present the fines collected by the river boards go to swell their revenues and help them to police the rivers. The right hon. Gentleman now fills an office where he is in fairly close contact with the Treasury. I do not think he can have failed, efficient as he is, to recognise this old cannibal which has appeared on the scene and is obviously bent on swallowing these increased funds.

Mr. McNeil: May I say that this is one of the very few subjects upon which I have had no strictures directed from the Treasury?

Lord Dunglass: If it is the right hon. Gentleman's own idea, then I have some hope he will modify it, because he is a reasonable person. May I point out that every river board is finding it more and more expensive to pay its bailiffs and to do the work it should do in protecting the stocks of fish in its rivers. At present the boards use the fines they collect for this purpose and it would seem to be reasonable that they should be allowed to retain a percentage of these fines. I would not insist on it in the indictible cases, but I ask that a river board should be allowed to prosecute in an indictable case. I ask that a percentage of the funds should go to the river boards. As an illustration of the difficulty which we face in Scotland in the proper policing of the rivers in the winter, I would point out that on the Tweed before the war we had 30 bailiffs, and we considered ourselves understaffed, but at present we are able to employ only 14.
Perhaps the biggest and certainly the most controversial question which has emerged from this debate has been that of whether or not the close time for net fishing should be extended. The point has been made by several hon. Members that this is a penal Bill and that Clause 13 is one which we would not expect to find in a penal Bill dealing with poaching. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman was wise to take this opportunity. No one can tell when we may have another opportunity to improve salmon fishing. It is not always easy for anybody to recognise what is good for himself. In these days it is not easy for industry of any

kind to take a long view. Almost inevitably people take the short view, and when the future is obscure all of us tend to make hay while the sun shines, if that is the right metaphor.
Two facts are beyond dispute. First, the fortune of the nets and the rods depends absolutely on ample stocks of fish running up the Scottish rivers. Secondly—and I do not think this has been sufficiently appreciated during the debate up till now—the stocks of fish in the rivers in Scotland, without exception, I should say, are far below what is normal, what they have been or what we should desire them to be. The proportion of fish caught by the nets to those caught by rods is seven or eight to one. That is a fairly conservative estimate. If this provision of extra close time has the effect of increasing stocks, then the nets will benefit in the same ratio when improvement takes place.
From our observations on the Tweed, we have found that not only are our spawning stocks of fish far below what they were at the beginning of the century, but they are only 25 per cent. of what they were just before the war. We must deal with that situation, and the Secretary of State is perfectly right in dealing with it now. Certain of my hon. Friends, and others, have suggested that it is not only the nets which are causing the shortage of fish, but that it is due to other causes, and I agree.
The right hon. Gentleman would do a much better thing if he could introduce a Bill dealing with pollution. It should not be like the English Bill; let him improve on that. Do not let any hon. Member think that pollution is the only cause, or even the main cause, of the diminution in the number of fish in the rivers. Pollution in the Tweed is less than it was 20 years ago, and yet our stocks are decreasing. In the Dee, the autumn run of fish has completely disappeared, and yet there is no pollution whatever. In the Beauly, for which there are full records right up to the present, it will be found that there has been a continuing decline over the last 30 or 40 years, yet there is no pollution worth mentioning. Therefore, we must be careful before we lay the blame for this present condition mainly on pollution, although it is an important matter which must be dealt with.
Several hon. Members have said that there is no evidence of insufficient fish in our rivers to produce a really satisfactory stock, but there is an extraordinary fall in the Tweed, which is one of the most important rivers in the British Isles from the salmon fishing point of view, and I think I have shown that there is room for real anxiety.
Any of us who serve on river authorities want to see harmony with the nets. Several hon. Members have mentioned this question of netting, and have shown considerable anxiety about it. Do not let us make any mistake; so far as the upkeep of the rivers is concerned, the main burden is borne by the riparian owners. On the Tweed, for instance, for every £11 paid by the riparian owners, the nets pay £6. In equity, I do not know whether they have any claim or whether there is any need for the rod to offer a quid pro quo.
We want to be friendly and live in harmony, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might consider whether all the rivers in Scotland could not afford to close down a week or 10 days earlier than they do at present in the autumn, when the fish are in bad condition, or—and I believe this would be acceptable to the nets—that he should make fishing by bait in the summer months illegal, and particularly by trawl. I see that the right hon. Gentleman holds up his hands in horror, but let him consider it. Great depredations have been done by people who fish a river and take a great many fish out of it.
The great virtue in this proposal for an earlier close time for the nets is that it would give a spread-over of fish running up to the spawning beds, and a higher percentage of fish running each week would get into the upper reaches of the rivers. Therefore, I hope that during the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman will not consider amendments to the principle of the Bill, that he will not abandon the principle, but that he will consider any Amendment which is designed to aid convenience in administration by those people who have to operate the Bill.
The Lord Advocate will be anxious to deal with the many points that have arisen in the debate, so I will conclude by saying that it has been an unusual

experience for a politician or a fisherman—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is both—in that practically all the conditions today have been favourable, so that his fish, I am bound to say, appears to be fairly well hooked, and we all hope that he will be able to bring it through all its stages to the land. He may not be able to do so, because we on this side of the House may antedate the Government. If not, he will have the satisfaction of knowing that there are many people in full sympathy with his ideas, and, at any rate, once more I say how glad we are on this side that this Bill has been brought in at this time.

9.28 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I am sure that the House would agree that we have had an interesting and varied debate. The noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), who has just sat down, said it was a pleasant relief from the atmosphere of international affairs. I did not get that impression from the course of the debate, having regard to the number of English hon. Members who intervened, but I think that, with the possible exceptions of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), and my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), there is general agreement and acceptance of the Bill. Certainly, the purposes of the Bill seemed to commend themselves to the majority of the speakers who entered into the debate.
Not unnaturally, there were conflicting views as to how these purposes should be achieved, and, bearing in mind the many conflicting interests, not only of hon. Members in the House who disclosed their interests, but the many conflicting interests within their own constituencies, which they had to try to reconcile, it was not surprising that so many conflicting views were aired. But I think that in approaching these matters and in arriving at the ultimate solution we must remember the main purpose of the Bill. If we keep our eyes fixed on its main purpose it may enable us to reconcile a number of conflicting views. The main purpose of the Bill is to protect, preserve, and, if possible, improve the stock of fish in our rivers.
This has been referred to as a penal Bill, but its penal aspect is only the method of executing the primary purpose, and if any benefit accrues to or detriments are suffered by any persons in the course of the pursuance of that purpose, then that is merely coincidental because we are not, by this Measure, trying to sort out the respective rights of different parties fishing in our rivers.
A plea was made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles in relation to the transfer of ownership of the fishing rights. I think that would be a very interesting, and, I am sure, a very argumentative, subject, but we are not trying to solve that particular difficulty within the ambit of this Bill. I trust that we can approach this problem by trying to solve the problems which confront us at present and by finding a solution that will be just and equitable, irrespective of who happens to be the owner of the fishing rights at any particular time. While the genesis of the Bill was an attempt to cope with the abuses created by the organised poacher, we have tried to take advantage of the situation to tidy up the law on this subject in certain respects. We tried to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate fishing, and, if I may use the phrase so commonly used throughout the debate, we even tried to distinguish between the legitimate and illegitimate poacher.
I, also, would like to add my word of thanks to the Maconochie Committee, on whose report this Bill substantially proceeds. We have framed the Bill largely on their recommendations, and where there has been a departure from those recommendations we think that that departure has been made for good and sufficient reasons. In doing so, we cast no reflection on the committee because I am afraid it is the lot of all committees that they seldom have all their recommendations adopted in full when legislation ensues.
Various hon. Members have disclosed their interest in the Bill. I think I should disclose my one and only interest. It is a purely professional one; it is that, as Lord Advocate, I shall be responsible, and my successors in office will be responsible, for the enforcement of its provisions. Unlike most of the other speakers in the debate, I am not a fisherman. I

am afraid that my fishing experience was confined to a jelly jar and minnows in a local burn. Whether that would constitute an offence under this Bill or not, I hope I shall not be pressed to express an opinion.
There is, perhaps, a certain degree of exaggeration liable to creep into any subject of debate dealing with fishing because it is characteristic and notable that exaggeration is the hall-mark of a good fisherman. In fact, it brings to mind the perfectly true incident which occurred in the Court of Session during a litigation which had as its basis the alleged interference with fish in a particular river as the result of the introduction of noxious materials. It was many years ago, and in substantiation of the case evidence was being led as to the size and quality of the fish before the introduction of the noxious materials and their size and quality after the introduction. A great deal turned on the evidence of the ghillies and other local people, and as one ghillie came out of the witness box he was heard to say, if I may use the ipsissima verba, "It is a damned sin being put on oath in a fishing case."
There were many points raised in the course of the debate, some of which, perhaps, are more appropriate to the Committee stage. I hope I shall not be accused of lack of courtesy if I do not manage to deal with all of them in the time at my disposal. I propose to go quickly through the Bill, dealing with the Clauses on which comments were made and afterwards, if time permits, dealing with criticism in respect of matters not dealt with in the Bill.
A certain amount of criticism was levelled at Clause 1, because of the increase in the penalty from £5 to £10. I fear a great deal of that is entirely misguided. In the first instance, I should make it clear that all the summary prosecutions under this Bill will be taken in the sheriff court. There will be no prosecution in any of the inferior courts of summary jurisdiction. Some of my hon. Friends prayed in aid the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee when it suited them, and repudiated them when they equally did not suit them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in dealing with this matter, thought it was a pity that


we had not taken cognisance of the recommendations of the Committee in this respect. But the Committee suggested that the penalty for this particular offence should be £50. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated, we have not a fixed mind on this subject but the original figure of £5 was fixed as far back as 1844 and when we re-enacted the law we thought it was not disproportionate to make the maximum fine of £5 in 1844 into a maximum fine of £10 in 1950.
I would only repeat what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) said…and we welcome him again in leading for the Opposition on this Bill—when he pointed out to one of my hon. Friends that this figure is the maximum and it will be for the sheriffs in summary cases, having regard to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, to determine what fines will be appropriate within those limits. For instance, it might be that in the case of the poaching of a single fish, a lenient view would be taken. It might be that a man was found poaching fish where it could not be proved by legal evidence that he had contravened any of the other provisions of this measure but had landed a considerable catch. In such a case a fine of £10 might not be disproportionate but might even be disproportionate in the wrong direction.
A principal critic of Clause 2 was my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn). I do not want to go into the matter he raised in any great detail, because it is probably a matter for the Committee stage and not the Second Reading. I think he will appreciate that, despite his excursions into decisions of the Court of Session and the House of Lords, the eventual decision of the highest court in this country on the methods employed in the Forth, to which he referred, was that they were illegal methods. And it is asking a great deal of us to countenance illegal methods in the Forth without countenancing them in other parts of Scotland and in that part of the Tweed that is in England.
It would be very difficult indeed not to make it an offence in relation to the River Forth when the same process, by virtue of the decision of the House of Lords, would be a ground for an action

of interdict at the instance of the proprietors against the fishermen; and when there would be the right to proceed in the civil courts for interdict but the fishermen could not be prosecuted in the Forth in respect of this fishing, whereas they could be prosecuted in respect of this method of fishing in the other rivers in Scotland.
That is the difficulty, and I am quite sure that if we do not depart from the Bill as it stands, whereby net and coble, as well as rod and line, are regarded as the only legal method of catching fish, it will not be outwith the wit of the constituents of my right hon. Friend to devise ways and means of fishing by net and coble in a manner which would satisfy the requirements of the law. I am sure my right hon. Friend will appreciate that if they had the wit and intelligence to return him as Member of Parliament, they will have the wit and intelligence to get out of this difficulty.
Clauses 3 and 4 are primarily designed to get the gangs who have made this commercialised venture and against which we wish to direct all our energy and operations. The suggestion was that since we have made the definition for the purpose of Clause 3 "two or more persons acting together," we would be interfering with the rights of people who could not be properly called members of a gang. Eventually we have got to come to a definition. In the 1862 Act three or more persons engaged in night poaching in combination were specially treated—and when they referred to night poaching in combination, they were referring to the method and not to the sartorial equipment. But there we had a definition of "three or more persons engaged."
We have come to the opinion that it is necessary to reduce that to two, and to extend it beyond night poaching, because the difficulty is that these depredations take place in remote parts of the country and can take place by day as well as by night. Two people could carry out the nefarious work, and we feel that if we do not extend this definition to cover gangs operating even only in two's, we might be letting loose some of the worst offenders in these circumstances. But, of course, if it transpired that two people were engaging together in innocuous poaching—in what has been called the traditional poaching—that


is a factor which the court can take into account.
The court will know quite well why we have enacted Clause 3. They will know quite well that the increased penalties which Clause 3 enacts were not designed to meet the legitimate poacher, whether he was acting singly or as one of a pair, but were designed to meet the gangs who were carrying on a commercial enterprise. I do not think we need have any great concern about the fact that we have included "two or more persons" in this Clause.
I do not think there was any real dissent to Clause 4 because that method of obtaining fish is obnoxious to all decent minded people.
On Clause 7, I found that while there was no objection at all to the creation of this offence, there was a certain amount of objection to the subsection which provides that the court may convict on the evidence of one witness. May I say here and now that it was necessary to introduce this Clause, because without it all the rights of search recommended by the Committee and provided for in this Bill would have gone for naught, since experience showed that if people were caught in possession of fish or of gear indicating this nefarious type of poaching at a point away from the locus, under the existing law no action could be taken against them.
Attention was directed to that fact before the Committee by the Chief Constables' Association. If it was impossible to get into the net people who were discovered one mile or 20 miles or 50 miles away from the point where the offence was committed, the right of search was worthless. It was no use having the right to search a vehicle at Aberdeen if the fish had been taken out of the Dee, somewhere up the Dee, and we could not charge the people who were in possession of the fish at Aberdeen. We introduced this new offence of illegal possession particularly to strike at the organised poachers operating on a commercial basis.
Why did we introduce the provision about one witness? We gave this matter very grave consideration because the common law of Scotland provides that no person shall be convicted except on the evidence of two witnesses, or one

witness corroborated by facts and circumstances. But, of course, it is quite wrong to suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), suggested, that this is something entirely unprecedented. In point of fact, there is a very close analogy in poaching for game under the Poaching Prevention Act of 1862, which, incidentally, attracts the provisions of the Day Trespass Act of 1832. A person can be convicted on the evidence of one witness for the very analogous offence of poaching for game, and I have here a catalogue of other Statutes under which the evidence of one witness is sufficient, if believed, to obtain a conviction.
The court must be satisfied, of course, as to the evidence of that witness, and I am sure that not only does precedent justify this step but expediency justifies it, too, because, as I have said before, many of these offences take place in the more remote parts of the country, and often the person discovering the offence, be he a constable or a water bailiff or someone else, is unaccompanied. If we are making a proper and determined attack on these gangs, we must take rather drastic measures. Thus, knowing that we are departing from a principle from which we do not lightly depart, I think the facts and circumstances fully justify the departure.
I should like to pass to the question of the rights of water bailiffs in relation to search and to arrest, because they follow naturally from what I have said. Incidentally, the powers of water bailiffs, as contained in Clause 10, are largely a re-enactment of Sections 25 and 28 of the Act of 1868, so that we are not giving any additional powers to water bailiffs under Clause 10. Of course, we restrict these powers to their own districts or to adjoining districts.
When we turn to the power of search, about which a great deal has been said, I should like to point out that, under the Act of 1868, both the constable and the water bailiff have the right and the power to search, provided they have obtained a warrant from a justice of the peace or the sheriff. Where we depart in this Bill from the previous law is that we are giving certain rights to the constable and the water bailiff and to the person appointed by the Secretary of State under certain circumstances to make a search without a warrant.
Where the warrant is granted by a justice of the peace or the sheriff we are, of course, dealing with the law as it stands, and that enables the constable or the bailiff or the person appointed by the Secretary of State not only to search the premises but to search persons in or entering or leaving the premises. When we come to the right to search without a warrant, such right is confined to cases of urgency and it will be for the court to determine whether or not the case was urgent. If a person abuses this power, he will be liable to action for civil damages and it will then be a question for the courts in a civil action to determine whether the urgency justified the use of the power.
We have made a very important reservation. If a search is being made without a warrant, a water bailiff has no right to search persons in a house or persons entering or leaving a house. That right is confined solely to the police constable. So far as the apprehension of offenders is concerned, we have restricted the existing law in this respect. Under the Act of 1868 there was a right of any person to apprehend an offender; not just the constable, not just the water bailiff, but any person had the right of apprehending an offender under the 1868 Act. But we have decided to restrict that to the three categories to whom I have already referred, the constable, the water bailiff and the person appointed by the Secretary of State, for the simple reason that we feel that to continue this process of vesting an ordinary citizen with the power of arrest may lead to a great deal of trouble. It is one thing for an official to go forward, be he constable or water bailiff, to effect an arrest; it is a different matter if John Smith goes forward and says, "I am going to arrest you"; there is likely to be a breach of the peace, and probably a great deal of dissatisfaction.
Clause 13 has proved, I think, perhaps the most controversial Clause in this debate. I think the undertaking given by the Secretary of State not only to consult but to canvass the views of any interested bodies really finishes the matter so far as this debate is concerned; and it can be carried on when we come to the Committee stage. I do trust, however, that hon. Members will take the long-term view. There are many interests involved here, but even those whose immediate

interest may be damnified to a certain extent must be asked to take the longterm view in the interest of the salmon and, incidentally, in their own interest. I am quite sure that no one can gainsay that proposals of this nature—to extend the period during which the fish will have a free run up river, however effected, whether by any of the various alternative suggestions, or by sticking to the original proposals, or by adapting them to meet some of the suggestions put forward—which will increase the time for a free run of the fish up river are good for the fish, good for the industry, and good for all concerned.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Mr. Thornton-Kemsley rose

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman must excuse me for not giving way. The point will come up on the Committee stage. I just wanted to say that I thought we should get more support from both sides of the House on this issue—that we should get approval from my hon. Friends on this side of the five day week for the fish, and support from the other side of the House for the proposal to set the fish free.
We come to Clause 14. I think that there is not very much criticism at all there, because the marking of packages is one way of securing that the black market does not take place. When, however, we come to Clause 16, dealing with the penalties, we are dealing with the matter which, perhaps, primarily concerns me, and on which questions were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn. Quite clearly, categorically, and with as much emphasis as I can command, I say that I am all in favour of making offences under this Bill or under any other Statute public prosecutions, because I think the whole tendency in Scotland is towards eliminating private prosecutions, and vesting the responsibility, right and duty of prosecution with the Public Prosecutor, and removing the right of the private individual to prosecute his fellow citizens in his own interests.
We have recognised, as distinct from England, where private prosecutions do take place, that we have law, institutions and customs which recognise the right of the Public Prosecutor to prosecute, and in recent times we have seen the removal bit by bit of the right of private interests


to prosecute. I could not accede to the suggestion of the noble Lord who wound up for the Opposition that some rights in some cases should be given to private individuals. [An HON. MEMBER: "The river boards."] Or the river boards. This is a question of principle. I think that the proper person to prosecute is the Public Prosecutor. All these cases will be in the sheriff courts or the High Court of Justiciary and under the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate.
It is perfectly true that some people think that they should still be allowed to prosecute. The principle is that people who have a vested interest should not determine whether or not a person is brought into the criminal courts. That should be the objective decision of a person who has no interest, namely, the Public Prosecutor. While I am not suggesting that prosecutions were ever taken for the purpose of swelling the funds of the concern which happened to bring the prosecution, the fact is that any fine recovered went to that body and not to the public funds.
In this respect, I should like to quote the views of a person well known in this House, whose views would have a great deal of weight with hon. Members, and perhaps particularly with hon. Gentlemen opposite, because, although he is now the Lord Justice General of Scotland, he was formerly Lord Advocate in a Conservative Government. Lord Cooper, in a recent case in which the private prosecutor was the Fishmongers Company, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, said:
There remains the matter around which the debate centred, namely, the admissibility of the vital evidence relating to the discovery of the salmon in the cold store. The respondents, the Fishmongers' Company, are private prosecutors, who appear to have assumed, both in Scotland and England, the responsibility of enforcing the Act, and it is certainly a little odd that a matter which has latterly acquired so pronounced an element of public interest should not yet have been confided to the Public Prosecutor alone.
Well, we intend to do that in this Bill, and thus endorse the views of the Lord Justice General.
I am afraid that I must leave the other matters raised in the debate until the Committee stage. I should just like to

say that we have given a great deal of concern to the question whether or not we should introduce the licensing system, and I only make this observation in passing in answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage). It is one thing to do this in the narrow confines of Northern Ireland, but to do it in this Bill would have meant extending it, not just throughout Scotland, but throughout the whole of England, to make it effective. Every catering establishment, hotel, boarding house and cold store throughout the country which might have an isolated transaction in salmon would require to keep records. That was far too great an imposition for the results which might have been achieved—by results I mean convictions as a result of inspections disclosing offences which had been committed. We can develop that in Committee, but I am rather surprised to find so many hon. Members opposite wanting more controls and more inspectors.

Sir D. Robertson: Only those that are essential.

The Lord Advocate: When we say that hon. Members opposite disagree.
In conclusion, I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides for the great interest they have shown and the helpful suggestions they have made. I trust that in Committee we shall be able to fashion this Bill so as to produce something which will get rid of many of the evils which unfortunately have grown up in Scotland at the present time.
Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."—[Mr. Hannan.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Might I ask whether it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Bill at an early date?

Mr. Speaker: This Motion cannot be debated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law in regard to the protection of salmon and freshwater fish in Scotland, including the whole of the River Tweed, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the said Act."—[Mr. McNeil.]

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Could I now ask whether it is proposed to take the Committee stage of the Bill—

The Chairman: That question does not arise on this Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Lords Admendments considered.

Clause 1.…(PERIOD TO WHICH OBLIGATION TO RESTORE TRADE PRACTICE RELATES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 7, at end, insert:
A draft of any Order in Council under this subsection shall be laid before Parliament, and the Minister shall not recommend His Majesty to make the Order unless an Address has been presented by each House of Parliament praying that the Order be made.

10.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Frederick Lee): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not think the House will require a great deal of explanation of this and subsequent Amendments. The Bill, as the House knows, provides the date by reference to which employers' obligations under the 1942 Act are to take effect, shall be such date as His Majesty, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour and National Service may by Order in Council appoint. A draft of this Order in Council would, under the

existing provisions, have to be laid before Parliament under Section 9 of the principal Act and it would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The House may remember that in the Committee stage of the Bill the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) moved an Amendment to provide that the draft of the Order in Council fixing the date in relation to which the obligation under the 1942 Act would operate should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and not, as at present povided, under the negative resolution procedure. At the Third Reading, my right hon. Friend accepted the principle of that Amendment. In the Amendment which the Lords now propose we are implementing the principle of the affirmative procedure as against the negative procedure.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am very glad that this Amendment is being made and I am sure that we are right in so doing. An order made under this Bill is not a minor affair. It is, in fact, the main operation of the Bill itself, and, therefore, such an order, in the view of myself and my hon. Friends on these benches, is a very proper subject for active consideration by Parliament before it is introduced. I am, therefore, satisfied that we are quite right in this case in adopting the affirmative resolution, and I welcome the Amendment which the Minister has moved in respect to the pledge given on the Third Reading of the Bill to put this matter right.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL EMPLOYMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 1.—(REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS OF RESERVES CALLED UP FOR WHOLE-TIME SERVICE.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 8, at end, insert:
(d) in pursuance of any enlistment for a period not exceeding eighteen months with a view to service in Korea.

10.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr, Frederick Lee): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is one of several which, together, implement an undertaking given in the House to confer reinstatement rights on men who have voluntarily undertaken a period of whole-time service with a view to service in Korea. I understand that, in all, about 1,100 are concerned. The justification for the Amendment is that these men can be regarded as having undertaken a "duration of hostilities" engagement rather than an ordinary engagement for a fixed period. The Amendment covers other ranks who accept a War Office Type K engagement for 18 months' service with the Colours provided their services are required for so long. These comprise men from civil life possessing the qualifications specified by the War Office for this engagement and National Service men who have not completed their periods of whole-time service.

Mr. McCorquodale: We welcome this Amendment from another place which the Minister has moved and which we proposed during the Committee stage in this Chamber. I am grateful to the Minister for bringing it in, together with the other Amendments. I do not think, however, that the method adopted is the simplest that might have been devised. The Bill has now become horribly complicated, and I do not envy anyone who does not understand the principle of reinstatement in endeavouring to find his way through the great intricacies of the Measure. I am also sorry that it should even appear that officers should not have the same rights as other ranks in regard to reinstatement. I understand, however, that officers are covered in other ways and, therefore, I do not press the point.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(REINSTATEMENT RIGHTS OF PERSONS WHO ACCEPT COMMISSIONS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 20, at end, insert:
(3) Where any person serving whole-time as a commissioned officer under any such arrangements as aforesaid has undertaken, with a view to service in Korea, to serve whole-time as a commissioned officer for a further period not exceeding twelve months immediately after the time when his service under the said arrangements would have ended, any further period of such service in pursuance of that undertaking shall be deemed, for the purposes of

subsection (1) or, as the case may be, subsection (2) of this section, to be comprised in his period of whole-time service under the said arrangements.

Mr. Lee: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is in line with the principle contained in the earlier Amendment conferring reinstatement rights on other ranks undertaking service in Korea. It includes National Service men who obtained commissions, and certain professional men, such as doctors and dentists.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(ADAPTATION OF VARIOUS SEC- TIONS OF NATIONAL SERVICE ACT, 1948.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 26, at beginning, insert:
(1) Section thirty-six of the National Service Act, 1948 (which relates to the time for making applications for reinstatement) shall have effect, in relation to any period of whole-time service which consists of or ends with a period of whole-time service entered upon in the circumstances mentioned in section one of this Act or such a further period of whole-time service as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of this Act, as if for the words "second Monday" in subsection (2) of the said section thirty-six there were substituted the words "third Monday"; and section thirty-seven of the said Act (which relates to the duty of an applicant to state availability for employment) shall have effect, in relation to any such period of whole-time service, as if for the words "fourteen days" wherever they occur there were substituted the words "twenty-one days.

Mr. Lee: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment also implements a promise given to the House, and it gives partial effect to an Opposition Amendment. It is designed to give men covered by Clause 1 rather longer time than National Service men in which to apply for reinstatement and to notify their availability for work.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As it fell to me to move the Amendment in response to which this Amendment has been put forward, it would be ungracious for me not to express my appreciation of the attitude of the Minister in accepting the principle of the Amendment we moved, although not the


full extent of the Amendment. Perhaps I might add that this Amendment shows the value both of a conciliatory Minister and of an Upper House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO PER- SONS WHOSE SERVICE ENDED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT THEREOF.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 23, after "two," insert:
or subsection (3) of section three.

Mr. Lee: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides that the retrospective provisions of this Clause shall apply to National Service officers who voluntarily undertake service in Korea. On return to civil life, they will be able to apply for reinstatement as from the passing of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

UTILITY CLOTHING

10.8 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 20th November, 1950, entitled the Utility Apparel (Maximum Prices and Charges) Order, 1949 (Amendment No. 15) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1863), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be annulled.
There is a further Prayer on the Order Paper, and both are concerned with the same theme. With the permission of the House, I think it would be convenient if they were to be treated together. The second Motion is:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 20th November, 1950, entitled the Utility Apparel (Gaberdine Raincoats) (Manufacture and Supply) (Amendment) Order, 1950 (S.I., 1950, No. 1862), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st November, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: It would be in order for the hon. and gallant Member to discuss both Prayers together.

Colonel Hutchison: The first of these two Orders is concerned with the prices of certain articles and with the manufacture of raincoats out of gaberdine. My first complaint is against the method of hand-

ling these Orders and the way that they were made available to the House. The Orders, as the House will see, were laid before Parliament on 21st November. Some six days later I tried to get them, and I was told that they were not available. I put down a Question to the Minister asking why they were not available and I received a reply to the effect that the Order came into operation on 4th December, and to allow sufficient time for the printing of the four relating to the schedule arrangements had been made to publish all five on 1st December.
The House knows that we on this side think that delegated legislation has been carried much too far, and that out of the precious 40 days available to the public for examination and, if necessary, objection to any of these Statutory Instruments, 10 precious days have been cut off. That is an unfair way of treating the public. It is perfectly true that the schedules were available in the Library, but that is of no value to the public, and I cannot understand why it was necessary to lay the Order before the House of Commons before the schedules which, after all, are the important thing in the Order were available. Like a postscript to a letter, the sting is very often in the tail, and certainly that is the case with these schedules. Consequently, until the schedules were available the Order was of no significance at all. That is the complaint about machinery, but the main burden of my criticism lies in a different direction.
As I have said, the Orders cover a wide range of apparel. They cover things like men's, youths' and boys' outerwear, women's and maids' outerwear, women's and maids' underwear and nightwear and—I say this in an undertone so as not to raise too many hopes in female breasts—nylon stockings. A wide range of apparel is affected by this Order, introducing maximum prices and also new fabrics into the schedule.
Nobody in the House will deny the importance of earning dollars, and it was in connection with that, that I had the honour to lead members of the textile trade to the United States of America a few months ago. We were concerned entirely with trying to propagate and further the sale of British articles of this kind in that country. We came to a number of conclusions. I shall not weary the House with more than the pre-


dominant conclusion. It was this: that the Americans will not buy goods from Great Britain unless they fit in with American style, weight, weave and design. It is not the slightest use imagining that the type of goods that are mentioned in this Order will, in fact, automatically sell over there.
As a result of that visit, I am now concerned, when Parliament spares me the time, in trying to persuade manufacturers in this country to adapt their programme to American requirements, asking them to study design, weave, weights and widths. They say to me, very reasonably, that that is asking them to take a very serious risk, because the goods which are required in the United States of America demand special plant or adaptation of plant and the setting up of representation over there, and if the goods do not sell they come back to this country and are not in any utility—

Mr. Speaker: Are these things affected by this Order? They are affected by a previous order and this Order amends some of the specification of that order. Therefore, to annul this Order would not affect the original specification which laid down certain statutes.

Colonel Hutchison: May I, with respect, Sir, point out that in some of these orders, one in particular, the range of utility cloths is increased? My objection to the Order is that it does not go far enough, that it is only toying with the question, and that the range of specifications in these orders ought to be very much wider. I want to support that argument that this Order is too narrow, too confined, not flexible enough, by showing that it is killing or damaging seriously the very trade that the Government wants to bring about.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to add something to an Order. One cannot add anything to an Order. One is limited to what is in the Order, and nothing outside.

Colonel Hutchison: May I put it like this, Sir? Brought down to that narrow argument, I must object to the Order as being insufficient as it stands. To prove that insufficiency of the Order I want to show the grounds I have in mind. If I were to give an example from the manufacturing Order, perhaps rather a different

one and more directly in line with the Order itself, it would be that which applies to gaberdine raincoats, Order No. 1862. I am informed that that Order virtually limits manufacturers of these raincoats to only two cloths and that a kind of raincoat which I am told is a brilliant British discovery, the Ventile raincoat, is heavily penalised, because it has not been so far possible to establish production on a reasonable scale. Paradoxically enough, I am also told by raincoat manufacturers that this Order cuts out the cheaper type of raincoat which was popular before the war and thus has had the effect of raising the cost of living, which was not in the least the intention.
So I submit that these Orders ought to be examined afresh. I dare say I shall hear that that cannot be done, but I should draw comfort from the hon. Gentleman who is to reply if, in his statement, he recognises the problem that we and the manufacturers are up against. If the problem is realised, and if in future orders, the utility scheme can be more flexible, and less narrow and can provide in some way for garments and apparel which is sent out of this country in order to earn dollars, I, for my part, shall be satisfied.
There is one other point. If the manufacturers succeed in selling goods in the American market the narrowness of this utility range means that they cannot sell them in the home market, with their liability to Purchase Tax, at the same time. Instead of having a double length of cloth to run through their machines and so reduce their overheads, they are limited to a lesser quantity of cloth, because of the infliction of the 66⅔ per cent. Purchase Tax, to which all these cloths are subjected over here as they are not within the narrow range of this Order.
In conclusion, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should take these schedules away—it is the schedules to which I object more than to the Order—and see whether they can be widened. He should consult the trade to find out exactly what kinds of garment are being hit, like the cheap raincoats that I mentioned. He should try to expand the utility range. In mothering part of the home trade the Government are smothering the overseas trade. The taste and quality for which


this country has been famous is gradually disappearing. When taste and quality disappear, then very soon designers and skill are lost.
This is a very important question. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the study which we gave to this in the United States of America shows me that the chances of being able to sell textiles in the United States markets will always be struck at and made unnecessarily difficult and that our efforts may not succeed until the utility range is widened and made more flexible.

10.20 p.m.

Squadron Leader Burden: I beg to second the Motion.
The question of the utility clothing ranges has been causing considerable anxiety particularly in the wool cloth trade and in connection with garments made of wool cloth. In the case of cotton cloth the specification number is also an indication of the quality of the cloth, but in the case of wool it is not so. For a very considerable time although wool cloth has had a utility number which has remained stationary, the quality of the cloth has been debased, and the Order brings in new qualities of cloth to try to hide the failure of the Government to maintain the quality of the utility cloth under the old number.
The Minister will probably agree with me that certain cloths which were originally put into the utility range can no longer be made under the old numbers. There is also the danger in that in the past when buying a garment of cloth under No. 29E the public have regarded the number as an indication of the quality of the cloth and when they buy a garment made under the same indication number today the cloth may not be of the same quality. There is a very great danger in this when we realise that to try to increase our dollar earnings the Government made it possible to export utility garments and cloth to America and other markets Americans who bought cloth under No. 209 a year ago would find the quality debased if they bought it today. If we continue to export new qualities of cloth under the old indication numbers, there is a very great danger that the Americans will become dissatisfied and that we shall lose the American markets instead of rataining and expanding them.
If it had been possible for the numbers for cotton cloth to be regarded as specifications of standard quality in order to maintain the goodwill of the public in this country and also to retain the export markets in wool garments and cloths, the Government should endeavour to extend the wool utility range and ensure that the indication number is also a specification of quality. In other words, they should endeavour to bring in some standard specification on each number in utility ranges of wool cloth. That would serve a very much more useful purpose than bringing in new numbers in an effort to catch up with the increase in wool prices, which is apparently the case now. There should be flexibility to enable the price of existing numbers in the utility range to be raised instead of the quality under the numbers having constantly to be debased and new numbers having to be brought in to try to catch up with the increase in the cost of wool and the cost of manufacture.
I support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Colonel Hutchison), and I ask that these Orders should be withdrawn and that the whole question of utility fabrics and garments made therefrom, should be re-examined and another Order brought in to provide a much more reliable test of quality than there is at present.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I find it difficult to decide whether the services which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) renders when he is a Member of the House, great as they are, are greater than those he renders outside the House, for the report of the mission which my hon. and gallant Friend led to the United States is an excellent one.
First, I have an interest to declare in so far as I am actively connected with a company which produces piece goods, among them utility goods. I would like to pay a tribute to what the utility scheme has done in the past. I think it has done a good job since it was started, but I am not so sure that it will go on doing as good a job in the future unless it is altered radically. Before the war, one of the troubles was that cloths were always being debased, and one of the great advantages of the utility scheme has


been that it gives a designation of sound specification—

Mr. Speaker: A general discussion of utility cloths is not in order, because that is the law of the land. This is a Prayer to amend certain Orders.

Mr. Amory: I was hoping to show that I was disappointed because these Orders perpetuate the present scheme instead of, as I had hoped, radically altering it. I was about to point out one or two respects in which I think that is the case.
As far as export business goes, if we are too utility-minded we shall lose a tremendous amount of business. Sometimes hon. Members opposite speak as if everything non-utility was super-luxury. That is a great mistake. The export market where our prospects are best is in the grade just above utility—goods of sound quality and of a medium price grade. Sometimes people speak as if for fashion goods, they must turn to Europe and this country. I doubt whether that is true. More and more in many parts of the world people today are looking to America for fashion goods, possibly owing to the influence of the films. One of the advantages which the Americans have and which we have not in our utility scheme is that they are able to exploit new synthetic yarns—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the general principle of utility goods abroad. This is a Prayer to amend certain utility Orders and he cannot discuss the whole utility scheme.

Mr. Amory: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will try to restrict myself more narrowly to these Orders. What we want in altering the utility scheme, and I had hoped these Orders would have done something, to introduce great flexibility. Today we are very confined, and one of the greatest handicaps is the sudden step up in Purchase Tax—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going right outside the scope of the debate. We are only seeking to amend in a limited way certain utility Orders. The hon. Gentleman must keep to what is in the Orders, not what he would like to see outside them.

Mr. Amory: I am finding it difficult to make the points I had hoped to make

Mr. Speaker. I am trying to point out that these Orders are perpetuating the scheme which is leading to growing rigidity. We shall get nowhere on that line. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate to us that he has some plans in hand, even if he has not been able to apply them to these Orders, for giving effect to the greater flexibility I have mentioned. I believe the hon. Gentleman has a committee sitting now. I hope we shall see some of the effects of the work of that committee in these Orders. If not, I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is hoping for results from this committee and, if so, in what direction.

Mr. Speaker: This has nothing to do with these Orders. It is quite outside them. I must protest against this.

10.31 p.m.

Brigadier Rayner: I want, briefly, to suggest that these Orders are unsatisfactory from another point of view. It is admittedly a smaller point of view, but quite an important one. If I may be quite fair, I should say that I asked the President of the Board of Trade on the 24th of March last year what protests he had received against the use of the term "wool" to describe cloth containing only 15 per cent. wool, and what action he proposed to take. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
In consequence of representations received from various quarters in the past few years that the term "wool cloth" should not be used in Statutory Instruments, to refer to any cloth containing more than 15 per cent. of wool, we undertook that, as and when these Statutory Instruments were reviewed, they should be amended to avoid defining the term in a way which might prejudice its interpretation as a trade description. This has been done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949, Vol. 463, c. 46.]
I suggest that ever since the President of the Board of Trade made that reply in the House, he has forgotten it, because time after time, Board of Trade regulations and schedules have referred to "wool" and "wool cloths" in relation to materials which have contained an extraordinarily small percentage of wool. The Orders now before us contains specifications Nos. 215, 215A, 233 and 223A, which are gaberdine cloths of wool union with very little wool in them. They are referred to as wool cloths. In that way, the Board of Trade is encouraging traders to deceive their customers on


what the cloth really contains. We have the Board of Trade making threats about action to be taken against traders for any irregularity, but the people at the Board of Trade are very much to blame. I hope to hear something about this.

10.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Hervey Rhodes): With regard to the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun (Colonel Hutchison) about the laying of the Orders, may I say that the hon. and gallant Member has got it all wrong.

Sir Herbert Williams: No, he has not.

Mr. Rhodes: Oh, yes. He complained that it was unfair to the public. I suggest that it would have been unfair to the public if the prices had been going down. But instead of that, the prices are going up.

Sir H. Williams: Like everything else.

Mr. Rhodes: There is no question of the wholesaler or retailer breaking the law about this at all, because the stuff he had in stock was at the old prices. These Orders were signed on Monday, 20th November, and laid on 21st November. They were published on Friday, 1st December, and came into force on Monday, 4th December. It is usual for Orders of this description to come into force as soon as possible after they have been published. We have not the slightest wish to prevent the people concerned with Orders of this description from having their fair dues.

Colonel Hutchison: Surely it is a most heretical and dangerous doctrine that the hon. Gentleman should try to decide whether it is to the advantage of any section of the public that an Order should go into operation and, when he thinks it is to the advantage of, say, the wholesaler, to say that no harm has been done.

Mr. Rhodes: No. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is off the mark again, because there is no possibility of the unfairness to the public of which he was talking, since a man could not offend against the Statutory Instrument unwittingly when the price was going up. If the price had been going down, it would have been a different thing altogether. In fact if it had been going down—and I hope some day that will happen—

Sir H. Williams: With a change of Government.

Mr. Rhodes: —we would have aimed at allowing a longer interval of, say, a month between the date of publication of the Order and the date on which it would come into operation. This would give people a chance to handle their business transactions so that a reduction in price would come into effect. It is perfectly clear. There is nothing in that. There is no sting in the tail at all, because the rise in price has been given to the wholesalers and distributors in these Orders.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the schedules, but there is nothing particular in them or reason why they should be put in conjunction with these Orders. Personally, I do not see what objection he could have to them. I was glad he referred to exports, although he was running near to being out of order all the time. I appreciate the work that he did on the mission that went to Canada and the United States of America. I had great pleasure in reading their report, and seeing some of the comments he and his colleagues have made. Textile manufacturers throughout the country could read that report with profit, because it is a good one. I do not think so much of his arguments about utility and flexibility as I do about his report, because he was just a little bit wide of the mark again. It may be true that Purchase Tax might be a discouragement to exporters on occasions. On the other hand, it is also true that the high rate of this tax on fine woollens and worsteds has discouraged home consumption and made much more available for exports.

Sir H. Williams: The object of the hon. Gentleman is to make a vest so dear that I cannot buy it, so that Americans can wear it instead.

Mr. Rhodes: It might be all right for the Americans, but it is certainly objectionable to us. Utility cloth is, by intention, limited to the lower and medium prices ranges referred to by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory), and many of the types of cloth sought by our foreign customers, including the United States, are excluded from the utility scheme because they are too expensive. They cannot then be sold in the home market because of the Purchase Tax on non-utility cloth.
I want to give the House some information about what one can and cannot do under the utility scheme. Utility cloths—cotton and rayon—can at present be made in any width in the utility scheme, provided that the comparable price and weight and specification are there. The utility scheme cannot be blamed, on that account, for any failure of exporters to North American markets to make up in the required widths. The same applies to wool. That can be made up in the widths required. There is no question about the widths and weights, except as they are related to the Schedule for wool.

Squadron Leader Burden: Surely this does enter into it, because if a utility specification is such that it should be sold at a certain price and the price of wool rises, then, obviously, the only way that that cloth can be sold in the American or any other market is by debasing or lowering the quality of cloth. Otherwise, it cannot be sold at the price specified.

Mr. Rhodes: If he has any knowledge of this trade at all, the hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well he does not sell either to America or any other similar market on a utility number. What one sells on is a quality decided upon between two contracting parties, and the customer in Canada buys it by agreement with the seller from this side on a specification of the seller, whether it is all wool or whether it is a union cloth.

Squadron Leader Burden: If that is the case, why is it that the Government made it possible, and stated they were making it possible, for utility garments made of utility cloth to be sold to the United States and Canada?

Mr. Rhodes: That is a different matter altogether. The fact that one is able to sell, does not mean that, in the first instance, one is selling a utility cloth to Canada and one is hindering exports. The reason why, in all probability, there has been debasement in categories like this is, as the hon. and gallant Member knows full well, the high price of wool and the necessity of bringing down the cost of the blends.
I will deal with the question of flexibility at the risk of going outside the rules of order. The House will know probably that the committees on cotton and rayon utility schemes, set up by the

President under my chairmanship, have been considering this question of flexibility for some time. In fact, we had started on that work long before the hon. and gallant Member for Scotstoun went to America. These committees, both on cotton and rayon, recommended a relaxation of the specifications for cloths where there is a fashion element. Before the hon. and gallant Member condemns this, I want him to study very very carefully the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to a question by the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Booth), on 14th November, and the statement published in the Press:
…for cotton cloths which have a considerable element of fashion, such as dress cloths, a number of broader specifications should be introduced to allow greater variety in construction and to permit a wider range of cloths to be brought into the utility scheme …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 143.]
There was a little bit of selfishness in this tonight, but I do not object to roaming around because I wanted to put this over.

Colonel Hutchison: Is that flexibility reflected in these Orders?

Mr. Rhodes: Certainly not. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman knew what these Orders were doing, he would know the Orders and the prices in the Orders relate to garments made from wool and other materials at old prices. It is not as though these Orders have to do with the prices which are coming along. Not a bit of it. In making this recommendation for broader specifications both these committees pointed out that the introduction of specifications would be of great help to the export trade—

Mr. Speaker: This is a little dangerous. We are going quite outside the scope of the Orders. Afterwards, everything the hon. Member says will be discussable and we may go on all night discussing things which are not in the Orders but which the Minister has mentioned.

Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Sir. If you will excuse my inexperience I will leave it at that, if I may.
I will pick up the point with regard to wool, mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner). The question of what is wool and what is not wool, really came in after 1941 when the utility scheme was first introduced. In


1942, the question of what was wool was defined in an order, as the hon. and gallant Member will probably recollect. It was not until 1948 that this was altered when the Woven Cloth (Wool and Animal Fibre) (Manufacture Marketing and Supply) Order, 1948, came into force.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd (Mid-Bedfordshire): On a point of order. May I ask whether, in view of this interesting exposition of the definition of wool, those of us who do not regard utility wool as wool, will be able to argue the point?

Mr. Speaker: I was not listening at that moment, but I think we are getting rather wide of the Orders. I tried to keep the debate narrow, but the drafts which are presented sometimes do run rather wide. If one sticks to the Orders and nothing else, we know where we are.

Mr. Rhodes: I must say there was more substance in what the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes was saying—and I have come better prepared on that account—than there was in nine-tenths of the remarks made by any other hon. Member. He went back to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in March, when he referred to the necessity of avoiding defining "wool cloth" in Statutory Instruments in a way which might prejudice its interpretation as a trade description. The use of the term "wool" in describing cloth containing a substantial proportion of other materials conforms to the generally accepted trade practice of many years' standing. It was really brought in for the purposes of the wool and cotton controls during the war.

Brigadier Rayner: The Parliamentary Secretary is batting on a sticky wicket. He will have the whole of the trade against him. They are very annoyed about this definition, and they ought to know something about wool.

Mr. Rhodes: The hon. and gallant Member is not correct. No promise has been broken in this particular instance. But we undertake as far as possible to avoid using in future, schedule headings of the type to which objection has been taken tonight. I cannot say anything fairer than that. A lot of consideration is being given to this subject by the British Standards Institute and the trade as a whole, and I am hoping that it will be

possible sometime in the future to define "wool cloth" a little better.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I wish to make two points arising out of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. In the first place, he made unduly light of the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Colonel Hutchison) as to the delay in making the Schedules available. I understand that it is now admitted that these schedules were not available until 10 days after the Orders had been laid. Whatever the Parliamentary Secretary may think as to the outside convenience of that, it is surely inconvenient from the point of view of the House that from the day the Orders were tabled, when the 40 days that are provided for begin to un, 10 days elapsed before hon. Members were in a position to make up their minds whether or not to move to annul the Orders. That results in a further diminution of the already inadequate Parliamentary control over Statutory Instruments. What is alarming is not so much that this should have happened, but that the Parliamentary Secretary should make so light of it. I hope we are not going to have any further diminution, deliberate or inadvertent, of the very limited control which the House exercises over delegated legislation.
Secondly, as I understand the Parliamentary Secretary's speech and his peregrinations around the perimeter of the rules of order, he was endeavouring to make a defence of this Order. That defence would have carried more conviction if, at the time he was preparing his defence, his right hon. Friend had not been laying on the Table an Order which supersedes quite a large part of this Order. It is quite astonishing that the Parliamentary Secretary should stand at the Box and ask the House not to annul this Order, when he or his advisers must know that in the Votes and Proceedings yesterday there appeared as having been laid the day before yesterday Statutory Instrument No. 1996, 1950, which supersedes the whole of one of the related schedules dealing with the matter covered in the first Order—the wholesale prices of men's outerwear—and substitutes a wholly new schedule.
I cannot, in view of the disadvantage of which we all know, of the Order not


being available at the Vote Office, produce this Order in this House and so bring the English Constitution into chaos by stealing the one copy that is in the box in the Library. But I have looked at it very carefully and, clearly, it has the effect I have stated. We are faced with two alternative results of this situation. First, I believe it to be the truth that the Parliamentary Secretary, with all the assistance he has got, did not know that part of the Order which he is now defending had been superseded by his right hon. Friend 24 hours ago. If that is so, how can the Parliamentary Secretary who, specially briefed to resist an Order, does not know that another Order has been passed superseding it in part, expect ordinary traders, who are subject to criminal penalties if they contravene it, to have any possible knowledge of it?
The other possibility is that the Parliamentary Secretary knew of it and did not tell the House. I dismiss that at once because I know him and that he is always perfectly straightforward and honest with the House. As the position he sought to defend has been outflanked by his right hon. Friend I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary will now find it very difficult to ask the House to accept an Order part of which is not, in effect anyhow.

Mr. Rhodes: At the risk of another "peregrination round the perimeter," may I say—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Member must ask for leave if he desires to address the House again.

Mr. Rhodes: With the leave of the House may I say that hon. Members have grumbled about this both ways. It just shows how the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary work together. While I am defending in the House what, according to the hon. Member opposite, is an out-of-date Order, he is getting on with it and introducing a more up-to-date Schedule. We are doing our utmost to keep up to date with the increasing prices to follow the rapid rise in raw materials and I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will be perfectly willing to agree, that the speed at which wool

prices have gone up during the last few weeks would have made it very difficult for anybody to catch up with any "related schedules" or anything else.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: The Parliamentary Secretary's explanation has been extremely full. We are both Members for Lancashire constituencies and we are extremely interested in anything affecting the textile trade, but some of the Government speeches in the House really do not give us much confidence in the administration of the Board of Trade in these particular matters. The Parliamentary Secretary was evidently furnished with a brief to explain to the House what was wool, how the definition of wool was regarded in 1948 and matters of that kind.
I do think that the House has great difficulty when it has to consider Orders of this kind. The two Orders we have under consideration are Nos. 1862 and 1863. These numbers in themselves are significant of the sort of régime in which we are living. In the year 1950 we have already had 1860 Orders, and we are warned by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that Order No. 1996 is upon us, and that these Orders, laid yesterday, are about to supersede these Orders. That has not been denied by the Parliamentary Secretary; indeed, has been confirmed by him. He has just told us that it illustrates what close contact there is between him and the President of the Board of Trade, who has apparently prepared another Order because of the sudden rise in the cost of wool.

Mr. Rhodes: My information is a little more accurate than that of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. The Order that he mentioned, I am informed, does not alter the Orders under discussion in any particular whatever.

Mr. Assheton: The House is being put in a great difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames has taken the trouble to read the new Order, and has been good enough to inform us what, in his opinion, it is all about. It evidently came as a great shock to the Parliamentary Secretary because he has repudiated what he has told the House. I do not know which of his


statements is right, but they certainly cannot both be right.

Mr. Poole: On a point of order. Is it in order, on a debate on one Order, to refer to an Order which has not yet been published?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It seems to me that it may be relevant to the question whether the Orders now before the House should be annulled or not as to whether there is another Order on the same subject, if that be the case.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is it not a fact, Sir, that in recent years a Prayer by the Opposition against an Order was withdrawn at the request of the Government because they had already tabled another Order on the same subject?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that was a case where the Order which superseded the first Order covered the whole of the ground, and not merely part of it.

Mr. Assheton: I want to give the Parliamentary Secretary a fair chance to answer. Is he suggesting that Order No. 1996, to which the attention of the House has been drawn, does not in any way vary Orders Nos. 1862 and 1863, which are now before the House?

Mr. Rhodes: I am advised that Order No. 1996 does not alter these Orders in any particular. In any case the Order has not been published.

Mr. Assheton: We seem to be in considerable difficulty because I am told by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Order has not been published, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames says that it has, and is now in the Library. The Government should be able to give more accurate information on this point. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not know, there are, no doubt, officials near at hand who will give him the information. Is it in the Library or not? If there is no reply to my question it is quite clear that the Parliamentary Secretary is playing with the House tonight, and knows perfectly well that the Order is in the Library, and is not prepared to tell the House that it is, and what is in it. I suggest under these circumstances that he ought to withdraw both these Orders and bring them back another day.

Colonel Hutchison: I wish, very shortly, to reply, because the situation seems to have become chaotic and the deeper we go into it, the more difficult it is to make any sense of the present situation. The hon. Gentleman used the very extraordinary argument that delaying the availability of the Order and the schedule did not matter because prices were going up. He presupposes that no manufacturer would object and that he would not go against the Orders because prices were going only one way. But there are other sections of the public to be considered. It is an extremely dangerous theory to enunciate that, because it appears to the Minister that as all sections of the public will be satisfied it does not matter if the Order ever appears at all.
The fact that so much of this argument has turned on the schedule shows how important these schedules are. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is really aware of the contents of the schedules, because he engaged in an argument almost exclusively on the subject of wool. But if he studies these schedules he will find there cotton, silk, and nylon—all these things are covered by this order. The argument that the schedules do not really matter is nonsense. My original remark that the sting is really in the schedules is very true.
He said that a committee had been sitting and that it had reported and made recommendations as to more flexibility in the utility scheme. Is that report to be made public? Until we know what the committee said, the report is not of the greatest possible value. I asked whether that flexibility was reflected in these Orders and he said it was not. So the Orders are out of date on two counts. First, they do not reflect the finding of the flexibility committee—if I can use that term—and, second, it has been superseded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, in respect of schedule No. I(j) (Men's and youths' outer wear) by the substitution of schedule I(k). This is a new schedule superseding and completely altering that particular part of this Order. The thing is chaotic. The situation has grown fantastic. The only answer is to take the Orders away and knock them into shape.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This matter affects a large number of people in the country—


many thousands of retailers and those who get their living by dealing in goods of this kind—and it is unreasonable that the present chaotic condition should continue after the House has risen. We are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman a direct question, or, rather, two linked questions. Does he agree that yesterday, in the Votes and Proceedings, there was presented on the Order Paper a copy of the Goods and Services (Prices Control) Order, No. 1996 of 1950, and does he agree that that Order removes the related schedule, No. I(j), and substitutes a schedule of 27 pages, very largely varying the subject matter of the Orders we are debating tonight? If he does agree, how can he possibly expect members of the general public, who depend for their livelihood and not their entertainment, on Orders of this kind, to be able to understand what the Board of Trade wants to do. Would the hon. Gentleman give us an answer? If not, may I ask that if the hon. Gentleman, on further scrutiny, discovers that the facts we have related are true, will he then withdraw both these Orders and bring forward an Order comprehensible to the general public?

Question put, and negatived.

KENYA (AFRICAN EDUCATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wilkins.]

11.12 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: May we now leave this woolly discussion and give some attention to the findings of the Beecher Committee on African education? It is a most apposite subject in view of the announcement this afternoon by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on constitutional advance. We on these benches have always stood for the brotherhood of man, whatever his colour, and it is in that context that I should like to examine this question of education in Kenya.
In 1948 the Government of Kenya drafted a 10-year plan for education. The difficulty was mainly one of finance. The task of reconciling the educational needs of the African people with the ability of the Colonial Government to

pay was a most difficult one. The Government were aware of the insistent demand, inside and outside the Colony, and as fully aware of the need to speed up education among Africans, but after detailed examination they reluctantly found that the scheme finally arrived fell short of the ideal of education toward a fuller and better life for the African natives. The main objectives of the 10-year plan, as set out in the foreword, are as follows:
to provide within 10 years a full course under qualified teachers for approximately 50 per cent. of the children of school age, and to ensure that there shall be an adequate supply of trained teachers and a satisfactory number of pupils of both sexes to secure adequate education up to and including secondary school level.
The Advisory Council on African Education, on the 15th March, passed this resolution:
This Council urges that the proposed inquiry into expenditure on African education should be expedited, and that the Glancy Committee should be reconstituted for this purpose as soon as possible.
Why the necessity for an inquiry? The answer is that the local native councils were bankrupt because of the money they had spent on education in the junior and primary schools. In 1950 the native councils were spending £209,000 instead of the £145,000 they were budgeting for; and the Government were committed to spending £334,000 instead of the £246,000 they had anticipated.
The Beecher Committee met, and its findings have been promulgated. Very shortly, this is what the Committee suggests should be done. There should be educational surveys in the areas of Kenya. The Committee aims at 2,000 primary schools for a four-year course for the age group seven to 11 years, and there would be 340 intermediate schools for a two-year course for the age group 11 to 14 years and the intake at the age of seven should be about 180,000 pupils. There would be district education boards with the district commissioner as chairman, the education officer as second executive officer, four African members and four other members, missionaries nominated by the provincial commissioner. They have already sent, to Lancashire in particular, to recruit English teachers for help in this Kenya educational system.
It is intended that the senior secondary schools shall be pushed ahead very quickly, so that by 1950—that is, this year—there will be in the third form 330, in the fifth form, 120; by 1957 there will be something like 960 in the third form and 480 in the fifth form. Other schemes contemplate something like 30 girls' boarding schools and three technical schools. Similarly it is intended to extend the teacher training, and other parts of the educational system.
How is this going to work out? In particular, how do the Africans feel about it, because it is the Africans who will be wearing the shoe, and we are the cobblers who are making that shoe. The Africans are not very complimentary about it. In the Kenya Legislative Council, when voting took place on this issue, 24 were in favour and seven against. The seven against were four Africans and three Indians. So there was a solid African line-up against the proposals of the Beecher Committee.
I should like the House to look at the arguments deployed by the African members. Even though we do not agree with them, let us look at those arguments and see what substance there is in them. First of all, the African members said there was only one African member on the Beecher Committee, and they had put up something like 18 suggestions of which not one was accepted. They say that the Government should take full control of the African schools, and that the missions should be limited to teaching theology or divinity. They opposed the four-year course of the primary schools, saying that it was insufficient. The youngsters, they argued, would come out, if not illiterate, certainly of little use to themselves or the society which they would join.
Again, it was found that there was exception taken among the Africans to the idea that only Europeans could be inspectors and supervisors. They suggested that Kenya should be searched for Africans who might be qualified, before Europeans were engaged. They also objected to fees being paid by teachers in training. They argued that this would limit the applicants. Also, they said that a two-year course for the old one-year course would cut down the number of teachers who would qualify, and that teachers' salaries would be lower than they had been.
The Africans argue, again, that one can find enormous wastage, and that many of the teachers will leave the profession or will not continue on these lower salaries. Another point to which they object is the statement that at the moment only Europeans are fit to supervise examinations. They say that this is a reflection on the integrity almost of all the African teachers. But, above all, when one looks at the finances one sees that the Africans are expected to pay, not merely taxes for education, but also to build and equip schools and pay fees for their children as well. In the same vein they take exception, or object, to the composition of the district boards. They argue that they have less say in the organisation of the junior and primary schools now than they had before. In the old days the old native councils organised the primary schools, but under the new set-up with the new district councils they have less say.
But it is on finance that at the moment we find most to comment about. Under the findings of the Committee, finance for the plan was based on 30 per cent. of the total expenditure for the European schools, 30 per cent. for the Asian and 40 per cent. would be allocated to the African part of the educational system. In this 10-year plan the European capital would be about £725,000, about the same for the Asians, and for the Africans a little more, perhaps £800,000. We find that this year, according to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 27th November, the Europeans have already spent something like £1,140,000, the Asians about £502,000 and the Africans about £401,000. Already it seems that the Europeans have got well ahead and overspent their quota, while the Africans have not spent all the money allocated to them.
By 1960 it is expected that the enrolment rate in the first year will be 180,000 out of a total African population of five million. The Africans feel this is a very small proportion indeed of their numbers and they would like to see a faster tempo of educational development. Kenya is not a wealthy land, and I cannot see much more than secondary industries being developed there. Economically the African does not contribute much to the economic wealth of the country. Poll tax is £1 a year, much


of which goes back to local district councils.
Allowing for this, I would add two personal pleas. I would say that if this plan is to be implemented and we continue in this way, we need much more technical education, and much more education for women and girls. I am glad to see that the scheme for developing the technical college at Nairobi has been expanded, and that land for this scheme is being earmarked right, left and centre. But to me the key seems to lie in the expansion of education for girls, and I am delighted that every effort is being made to get more girls into the schools. This cuts across many native customs, but the problem of economics is largely bound up with the social customs of the African people. I am told that even Makerere-trained men prefer an illiterate girl as a wife because she is an asset compared with an educated girl who will not face the donkey work.
Again, the wastage in all forms of training is simply colossal. I am told that the girls disappear from the teaching profession at an alarming rate. I should like to ask the Minister of State whether it is correct that the life of a teacher is a little over two years. The wastage of women teachers going back to their ordinary lives is simply appalling.
Having said all these things about finance, about the number of schools, and about the proportion of Africans who are being educated, I honestly believe that if the Beecher Report is implemented it will mean a large expansion indeed in education for the African. It does seem to be an assault upon mass illiteracy. It is certainly not what the African leaders wanted, or even hoped for, but in the light of the financial situation we have to face this, and we have to ask for patience not merely from Africans but from many well-wishers over here. The time factor is clearly involved, but I pray that we shall not have to wait too long, and certainly not for the generation some people will have us believe we shall have to wait. I hope the Legislative Council will quicken the tempo of educational advance in Kenya, otherwise many of the African leaders over there and their well-wishers here will have their patience sorely tested.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Alport: I had not intended to intervene at this late hour, but I am sure that those of us who have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) will welcome the notice he has drawn to the important question of African education in Kenya. After all, his words will be read and studied far beyond the walls of this Chamber, and I am sure he has done right to draw particular attention to the problem of educating African women. It is one of the biggest problems that Africa has to face at the present time because, as he has said, it is one which is surrounded by greater prejudice than is almost any other aspect of this subject.
Is the Minister of State satisfied with the progress that is being made at present? I have asked a number of Questions during the last few weeks on whether the numbers of women who are being enrolled into the teaching profession in East Africa are sufficient for the needs of these Colonies, and in particular of Kenya. It is generally agreed that the numbers available at present for this type of work are quite insufficient. What policy has the Government of Kenya for meeting this situation?
What effort has been made to try to encourage those who are leading primary and secondary schools—I am referring to African women—to undertake a career afterwards? I know that the chances of any girl leaving an African school in Kenya and obtaining proper employment afterwards which will enable her to take advantage of the education she has received, are very small indeed. Yet, I do not believe that either the problem of educational advance or the problem of race relations or the problem of social advance in Kenya will be solved unless we are able to encourage and elevate the status of the African women as a whole. I am glad to see in the Beecher Report that particular attention is paid to this aspect of the problem.
There is one other point to which I would like to refer. I note that the Beecher Report pays particular attention to the importance of having a foundation for African education in the teaching of Christian religion. I think that any of us who have had experience of East Africa realise the grave danger which Kenya and other Colonies there are faced


with as the result of the de-tribalisation and the loss of the standards of conduct which so often are involved in that process. Indeed the whole basis of our education, if it is to be successful, is to replace these gradually disappearing standards with what we believe to be the right standards of morality, conduct, and ethics of Christianity. Unless there is this basis we can never, I believe, hope to see real educational advance. Therefore, I take this opportunity—and I apologise to the House for keeping those who have remained a little bit longer—an opportunity which we so seldom get, of emphasising these two vital points in connection with the advancement of the African in the future.

11.33 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Dugdale): I am very glad that the two hon. Gentlemen the Members for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and Colchester (Mr. Alport) have both dealt with this extremely important question. I am afraid that I have nothing like as long as I should like to deal with the whole of it, and the fact that I am not dealing with it all at as great length as I would wish, does not mean that I do not attach immense importance to it.
First, let me say that Mr. Mathu, the leader of the Africans on the Legislative Council, was himself a member of the Beecher Committee and did, in fact, sign the Report. Second, the fact that the Africans voted against it in the Legislative Council is, I think, only an occurrence which happens often in this House when people vote against something because of certain facts in it rather than because they object to the whole thing itself. They voted against it because of certain aspects with which they disagreed, particularly the payment of teachers. These matters are being discussed further and I hope it may he possible that we shall reach some agreement with the Members of the Legislative Council.
I welcome this Report so far as it goes, and remembering, of course, that it concerns Kenya only, and not the whole of East Africa, the plain fact is, in general, that in spite of some very fine pioneering work done, very little progress has been made in education in the past in East Africa and, indeed, in many other

Colonies as well. No one, least of all the Governments concerned, can regard with complacency a situation where only some 20 per cent. of the children get any education whatever, and nearly all of a rudimentary kind. The need for education is tremendous.
East Africa needs trained men and women to work in factories, firms and in offices; in short, to carry on the life of the country as it should be carried on, and as it cannot be carried on until there are sufficient trained people. What a difference it would make if we had 5,000 more skilled artisans and engineers to carry on the life of the country, or if we could find an additional 100 doctors and veterinary surgeons. That is the practical side. But education is far wider than the mere acquisition of technical skill. When I went to East Africa recently, I found that throughout the country there was a real hunger to learn. Over and again, when I asked people what they wanted, the answer was not new houses, still less new cars, but new schools.
What is holding up the provision of these schools? First, there is the lack of trained teachers, which is a very serious problem. I appeal to people interested in teaching in this country to come forward and see whether they would not like to take up teaching in the Colonies. There is a great future in that. But that is not all. We want to get a far greater output of trained African teachers. We have already doubled the output of African teachers since the war, and it will be doubled again as a result of the Beecher Report recommendations. In addition, the quality of the teachers will be much improved. But we must also have teachers from the United Kingdom until there is a sufficient number of African teachers. It will take a very long time to cope with all the education necessary in this very expanding service.
The second great need is finance. I must be quite frank. No country can expect to have a first-class, or even a second-class, system of education unless it is willing to pay for it, and it can only pay for it by taxation. The East African territories have the money to start a first-class system of education if, and only if, they are willing to raise their leval of taxation. It is impossible, unless a country is exceedingly rich, to start a good system of education


with a low system of taxation. It just cannot be done.
I hope that those who see the need for education will be willing to pay for that which they desire. If we get a sufficient amount of money forthcoming from East Africa, if we get a sufficient number of East African trained teachers, and, at the same time, if we get the help we need from people with teaching experience in this

country, we shall see, not only in Kenya, but throughout East Africa as a whole, as the result of this Report, a system of education of which we and, what is far more important, the Africans themselves, can be proud.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.